) ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on PRIVILEGES and ELECTIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. A. Anstett Constituency of Springfield VOL. XXXI No. 25 - 2:00 p.m. , FRIDAY, 16 September, 19 83. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Provmce of Manitoba

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

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS,Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEV, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. 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 Spri ngfield Thompson La V:;rend rye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Stu rgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows ROSSI�ere lnk ster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMM ITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Friday, 16 September, 1983 TIME - 2:00 p.m. LOCATION - Ste. Rose, Manitoba. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Andy Anstett (Springfield) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committeepresent: Hon. Messrs. Adam and Bucklaschuk Messrs. Ans tett, Ashton, Brown, Eyler , Graham, Kovnats, Lecuyer, Nordman, Scott WI TNESSES: Mr. Gus Arnal, Private Citizen Ms. Alice Saquet, Private Citizen Mr. Ronald A. Simard, Private Citizen Father Tessier, Private Citizen Rev.

Jack McLaughlin, Private Citizen Sister Mona Lewandowski, Private Citizen Ms. lsabelle Archambault, Private Citizen Mr. Arthur Milette, Private Citizen Ms. Gisele L'Heureux, Private Citizen Mr. David Grey, Swan River Indian and Metis Friendship Centre Inc. Mr. Louis Saquet, Club d' Age d'or de Laurier Ms. Rose-Anne Verley, Private Citizen Mr. Roy Laycock, Private Citizen Mr. Rene L. Maillard, Village of Ste. Rose. Mr. Gilbert Rioux, Commissaires d'ecoles franco-manito baines Ms. Claudette Savard, Commissaires d'ecoles franco-manito baines Mr. G.

Wachsmann, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed Resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee come to order. First name on our list is Mr. Gus Arnal. Mr. Arnal please. MR. G. ARNAL: Monsieur le President, membres du comite. 11 y a presentement beaucoup d'interet de la prt de nombreux parents de la Province du Manitoba pour que leurs enfants soient eduques dans une ecole ou le fran<;:ais est offert comme langue d'enseignement.

On n'a qu'a ecouter les nouvelles ou lire les journaux pour constates cet interet grandi ssant et le grand nombre de commissions scolaires qui doivent faire des changements et souvent des changements drastiques afin de satisfaire les demandes des parents. 429 Dans notre propre communaute de Ste-Rose, par exemple, nous avons un autobus qui voyage chaque jour a Laurier ou les etudiants assistant a une ecole franc;:aise et je dois souligner que la majorite de ces etudiants sont des foyers ou l'ang lais est la langue de conversation.

Je comprends que la meme situation existe dans toute la Province et que la competition est grande en ce qui conerne l'enrolement d'etudiants dans les ecoles franc;:aises. Cette decision des parents cause sans doute beaucoup d'ennuis et demande de nombreux sacrifices de la part de tous et je suis certain qu'ils esperent quelque chose de retour pour leurs efforts. Je crois que !'article 23 offre une certaine garantie que ces efforts et sacrifices ne servent pas en vain et qu'une plus grande opportunite sera offerte a ces etudiants plus tard dans la vie ou ils pourraient faire usage de ce qu'ils ont appris.

Ce genre de support et encouragement sera sans doute un comfort pour les minorites leur offrant plus grande assurance de la protection et de leur coutumes. Le Manitoba se tient tier de son Folklorama et de le voir disparaitre au benefice du concepte de toutes les races englou ties dans le "melting pot" serait une tragedie. 11 semble exister grande acrimonie en certains milieux quand on discute du fait franc;:ais. Les sept points enonces dans la proposition des services en franc;:ais laissent certainement ample liberte la ou les organisations autres que le gouvernement provincial sont concernes.

Comme citoyen, ancien em plo ye du pr ovincial, je sui s certain qu 'aucun gouvernement aurait la temerite de placer le bilinguisme comme critere d'emploi au depens de la competence et de l'efficacite. Ce serait une politique negative et Dieu sait que le gouvernement n'a pas besoin de plus de critiques qu'il en rec;:oit maintenant. Les propositions semblent tres liberales et tout ce qu'il nous manque est un peu de bonne entente entre tous les partis interesses. MR. CHAIRMAN: Merci. Questions for Mr. Arnal. Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Merci, Monsieur le President. M.

Arnal, si je comprends bien, vous appuyez !'entente telle qu'elle etait convenue le 17 mai et vous appuyez la proposition d'amendements a !'article 23, n'est-ce pas? MR. G. ARNAL: J'appuie premierement la proposition du 17 mai, mais aussi j'endo sse en

partie les amendements qui ont ete suggeres dernierement. MR. G. LECUYER: Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr. Arnal, thank you very much for appearing here today. I think there was an additional question.

Friday, 16 September, 1983 Mr. Brown. MR. A BROWN: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Arnal, you mentioned that there already is a great movement in Manitoba towards Anglophones learning another language and being involved in French Immersion cl asses. Now, all thi s has been done without entrenchment, so far; and I think there is a genuine desire, and you menti oned this, on beha lf of Anglophones also to become more involved with the French language. You also mention your concerns as far as government employees are concerned because you were a former civil servant yourself, is that correct? MR. G.

ARNAL: Pardon, I didn't understand. MR. A. BROWN: That you were a former civil servant yourself? MR. G. ARNAL: That's right, and I lived through it, yes. MR. A. BROWN: Was this a provincial position or a federal position? MR. G. ARNAL: Provincial position. MR. A. BROWN: Are you aware that the Manitoba Government Emp loyees Association is opposed to entrenchment as it appears in Bill 23? MR. G. ARNAL: No, not as such. I've read it in the papers but I'm not connected with them anymore so MR. A. BROWN: Ok ay, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Once again , Mr. Arnal, thank you for being here today.

Alice Saquet? MS. A. SAQUET: Monsieur le President, membres du comite. Je suis originair e de la France. Lorsque je suis venu au Canada, je croyais arriver dans un pays bilingue. Je dO vite constater qu'il en n'etait pas le cas. lnutile de vous dire la deception que cela represente pour moi. Et aurai-je cru a l'epoque ou je suis arrive dans ce pays qu'un jour je serais devant un tel comite pour defendre ma langue natale, langue que je croyais jouissait d'un statut egal a l'anglais au Canada.

J'ai peine a comprendre comment un pays bilingue a pu permettr e des legislations telle celle de 1890 qui abolit le franc;:ais dans la legislature et dans les cours. Mais encore plus alarmant, Monsieur le President, est la legislature de 1916 qui abolit le franc;:ais dans les ecoles. La, c'etait une veritable attaque aux jeunes que !'education doit pr eparer pour l'a venir . Heureusement qu'en 1970 , le gouvernement declara a nouveau le franc;:ais comme langue d'enseignement par l'adoption de la loi 11 3.

Avec tous ces affronts, la la ngue franc;:ais e au Manitoba a beaucoup souffert au point ou aujourd'hui, faute de nombre, l'on n'a parfois pas acces a !'education en franc;:ais pour nos enfants. Tel est le cas a Laur ier. 430 Apres la neuvieme, nos enfants desireux de poursuiv re leur scolarite en franc;:ais doivent qu itter la famille pour joindre les grands centres ou ils peuvent beneficier d'une ambiance et culture franc;:aises. Monsieur le President, je crois que les gouvernements successifs dans l'histoire du Manitoba ont contribue a creer de telles situations.

Le gouvernement actuel a negocie une entente relativement a des amendements de !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. J'appuie cette entente, de mai derni er, qui a ete negociee dans l'esprit de rendre justice aux citoyens manitobains d'expression franc;:aise. Par ailleurs, Monsieur le President, je crois que ces droits constitutionnels que le gouvernement s'apprEHe a restorer ne doivent pas devenir l'objet d'un vote general.

Cela n'est pas la fac;:on juste de faire valoir les droits d'une minorite, et d'ailleurs, quand ces droits furent enleves en 1890, jamais la population ne fut consultee par le gouvernement du Premier ministre Greenway de l'epoque. J'appuie done la resolution telle que negociee en mai dernier entre le gouvernement du Manitoba et la Societe franco-manitobaine. Permettez-moi finalement de dire que je crois que la Societe franco-manitobaine a agi et a negocie dans le plus grand interet oe tous les francophones dont elle est la representante officielle. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Merci, Madame Saquet. Questions please?

There being no questions, Madame Saquet, thank you very much for appearing here today, on behalf of the committee. Next on my list is Alvier Brunei. Mr. Brunei? Ronald Simard? MR. R. SIMARD: Mr. Chairman, mem bers of the committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you wait one moment please, while copies are distributed. Please proceed. MR. R. SIMARD: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I expect that during the course of these public hearings that you will repeatedly hear that amendments to

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act will create a heavy cost to the public pur se. May I take this opportunity to place this objection in its proper perspective. The proposed amendments are seen as costly, simply due to the fact that the number of dollars involved is always equa ted to the number of people who will apparently benefit directly. Many opponents imply that to spend a large sum of money on approxima tely 5 percent of Manitobans who are Franco-Manitoban is extravagant and disproportiona te.

This opinion limits itself only to dollars and cents which is not the issue, and simply ignores the moral and ethical considerations involved. Justice and fair play should not be items with a price tag attached. The "money-first" approach does not acknowledge the Franco-Manitobans' contribution to the birth of this province. lt does not consider the cause and effect relationship between the small French­ speaking population of today and the laws abolishing French rights in the past. Had the rights of Franco­ Manitobans been respected in the past, would we be an "endangered species" today? These are questions

Friday, 16 September, 1983 of justice and fair play, not questions purely of finance and costs. lt appears that the governmnt is trying to correct an injustice committed nearly a century ago. Manitobans should rally behind this action to demonstrate to all that respect for minorities is still alive in our province. In closing, it is my hope that the resolution negotiated last May to amend

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act will be unanimously accepted by the Legislature, for their importance transcends simple dollars and cents, but is a matter of justice and fairness to aiL Justice and fairness are the cornerstones of a truly democratic society, and it would be terribly sad for Manitoba to consciously erode the foundations of our system of government. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Simard. Questions? Mr. Ashton. MR. S. ASHTON: Yes, I would like to thank you for your brief.

I think you raised a very interesting point about the question of dollars, because I know if you use the argument that some people do that it might cost some money, you could say, well for example, we shouldn't hold elections because they cost money. I'm sure that we wouldn't agree with that. I am wondering too whether you consider it really to be that much of a costly thing. Since 6 percent of Manitobans are French-speaking, I don't think any figures have shown that there will be vast numbers of people who would be required in the Civil Service, for example, to speak French with the programs.

I am just wondering really if what is going to happen is that the 6 percent of French-speaking Manitobans are going to get service for the tax they pay. I am wondering if you might consider that as to be another aspect of it too. Perhaps it isn't going to cost that much money at all really. MR. R. SIMARD: The costs involved, as far as I'm concerned, are not the issue. Your comments on how much money is spent for that, you know, that's fine. I just feel that what you are talking about here is really not restricted to dollars and cents. As I have stated, you are looking at basics of democracy.

If everything was equated only to simple dollars, there would really be no purpose in having these hearings or anything like that. If you're only looking at dollars or other points which are not mentioned in my submission, simply that it would probably cost you an awful lot more to do it if the Federal Government did, in fact, legislate it upon you and all the statutes have to go. I mean, that's been put in the newspapers and other arguments. lt is not a subject that I would like to add ress. MR. S.

ASHTON: Basically, you're arguing for looking at the justice of the situation and asking for a more tolerant view than has been expr essed by some. MR. R. SIMARD: A much more tolerant view. The French-speak ing group are a minority in this province particularly - well not as much as in other provinces - they are not a minority group in its truest sense in Quebec, shall we say, but the effect on this minority 431 could be applied, let's say, to any other minority which you care to bring up. The Ukrainian group to the west of this town is fairly large.

They do have rights of a kind, and there are other groups who are minorities that do have rights. This is in the same sense that you just do not in a democratic society simply eradicate those rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Si mard? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Through you to Mr. Simard, I would like to refer to the second-last paragraph on the fi rst page of your submission where you state, "lt appears that the government is trying to correct an injustice committed nearly a century ago." Are you aware, Mr. Simard, that the

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act which was declared invalid in 18 90 was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1979, and reaffirmed by the Manitoba Legislature in 19 80? MR. R. SIMARD: The injustice that was committed was the abolishment of it Yes, it has been reinstated. What I was referring to is the intent of this government to go further than to simply correct a legality. An injustice is not simply something that is, you know, a legal thing only. The injustice in itself was the removal or, shall we say, restriction of the use of French.

There, my opinion is that the government is attempting to correct the injustice also, not only the strict legalities involved. The legalities, as you mentioned, arose from the Supreme Court rulings and other actions of this government MR. H. GRAHAM: On that very issue then, could you tell me, Mr. Simard, what it is that the goverment is trying to do with the proposed resolution before us now then? MR. R. SIMARD: lt is attempting to provide service to the French community in areas which clearly have a demonstrated need due to the population involved.

I do not see it as an action which automatically forces every single individual municipa lity, town, city or group in Manitoba to provide service in French. I see it as an attempt to allow those areas, and where there is a defined need, to have such services in French. MR. H. GRAHAM: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to.Mr. Simard, it has been suggested by some that the present move of the government was to avoid a Su preme Court ruling. Would you think that would be a proper, sufficient grounds for a change in the Constitution, as has been suggested by this amendment? MR. R.

SIMARD: If I understand your question correctly, you are saying that the government is doing this to avoid a legislated imposition. Can you clarify? MR. H. GRAHAM: No, Mr. Chairman. I have said, it has been suggested by some, that is the reason the government is using to change this. Would you think that would be a proper reason for chan ging the Constitution and the laws of Manitoba and of Canada? MR. R. SIMARD: What other people think of what the government is manipulating - you're talking of the

Friday, 16 September, 1983 Government of Manitoba to use this forum to change the laws. Governments do what they feel is correct. What others imply and take and make comment on what they do is their right to comment. Do I consider the government using this type of format to review its decisions? The government is free to do what it wishes in this sense. If it wished to simply leave it in as

an act to be discussed simply in the Legislature, there is nothing that I could personally do about that. To go this route is an opportunity for the government to obtain, I feel, an opinion from the people of this province. MR. H. GRAHAM: I want to thank you, Mr. Si mard, for giving us the benefit of your opinion on this. I want to also suggest that it was mainly the opposition that persuaded the governm ent to ha ve the se pu blic hearings so that the people could be heard on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Seeing none, Mr. Sim ard, thank you very much for your presentation here today. Next on our list, Mr.

Gilbert Rioux. Mr. Rioux. Father Tessier. FATHER TESSIER: Monsieur le President, Membres du Comite, J' aimerais souligner quelq ues points au sujet du debat qui fait rage depuis que le gouvernement de la Province entend amender !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Premierement, je ne sais pas si les medias en sont responsables, mais il me semble qu'on est en train de faire beaucoup de bruit pour peu de chose. Les manchettes des journaux, les editoriaux, les lettres aux redacteurs, les pamphlets, les petitions, voir meme des audiences publiques.

Pourquoi tant de bruits devant le fait qu'on veut rend re justice a la population francaise. Que vise l'amendement de I' Acte du Manitoba, si non un certain epanouissement de la vie francaise au Manitoba. Je ne vois pas comment cet epanouissement chez 5 pourcentage ou 6 pourcentage de la population puisse menacer la majorite. Deuxiemement: au sujet de ces audiences publiques, je ne crois pas qu'e lles soient en elles-memes un bien. Une injustice a ete commise et elle doit etre rectifiee. On ne demande pas !'opinion des gens au sujet d'un deja tranche par la loi.

Pourquoi veut-on sander !'opinion manitobaine avant de !rancher une question avant tout legale. "Le francais et l'anglais sont les langues officielles du Manitoba", n'est-ce pas? Troisiemement, je souhaite que I' on remarque surtout les points posit ifs d' une pr ovince manitobaine officiellement bilingue. Cela aidera:t certainement le Canada a demeurer le beau pays tel qu'il est. Et puis, quel signe encourageant pour les nombreuses minorites du pays de voir que la minorite officielle du Manitoba a gain de cause dans le retablis sement de ses droits.

Tout cela pour dire que j'appuie la resolution negociee au mois de mai pour amender I'

article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Father Tessier. Any questions for Father Tessier from members of the 432 committee? Seeing none, thank you very much Father, for appearing here today. Next on my list is Ray Murray. Mr. Ray Murray. Mr. G. Wachsmann. Reverend Jack McLaughlin. Reverend McLaug hlin. Please proceed. MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman and members of the panel. I want to speak this afternoon just a few words here in what I believe will set some way of bringing a deeper understanding, I believe, to the issue that is before us.

I'd just like to quote, as I often do, and I'm sure Father Tessier does, a Biblical qu ote: One is "that the lion will lay down with the lamb", and this is a quote that comes from almost 3,000 years ago, and I want you to note that this is really talking about the end of time. I want you also to note that there will be, not just one lion or one lamb, but there will be a lion and a lamb and both will be together in the Kingdom. So I think, even in this basis of scripture there is some evidence that there can be differences, even in the Kingdom itself, and that they are both accepted.

As I have listened, also I hear, under a lot of the reasoning and rationale tha t goes on, fear. I am reminded of one of my own experiences where I spent a fair amount of time on a little island called "Cu racao" off the coast of Venezuela, and I asked a young child on the street directions. The child replied to me in the local language of Papimento (phonetic) and then switched to Spanish, and then real ized that I didn't understand Spanish, switched to Dutch - which is the official language of the island - then trying all those three realized that I still didn't understand, switched to English.

Now I was amazed, myself, and thought how great the richness of this island, and what resources they have within language, and how I could covet such abilities within our own count ry. And when I were to return and to find that, well often as Anglophones, we were very upset by their being other expressions of the language, that it has continued to amaze me. I suppose this point was driven home for me when I spent some time with Project North and I was in St. Paul, Alberta and accidentally found myself in the French community there, and we began to talk about the language issue.

One friend, who I have come to respect deeply, really cried out in pain that he lived in a country where he at least couldn't express himself in a few words of his own language, or that language couldn't be acknowledged. lt has allowed me to reflect on language, and I believe, it affects our language is an expression of who we are, it is very deeply rooted within us. I think, as an Anglophone we don't really recognize that, we think that everyone, though they speak in different languages, really thinks in English.

But a language, I believe, is akin to a person's skin, it is deeper than that, it is akin to their very existence as a human being, and it is rooted deep within their history. I also believe that languages are a means of door into treasure houses, and they are other ways of seeing the world. I think if langua ges are not supported within Manitoba and within Canada, as a whole, then we will become much impoverished because we will be cut off from the treasure houses of history and of other countries and of our own culture and backgrounds. I

Friday, 16 September, 1983 know from even translating languages from one to another, as I am involved in that in a small way from time to time, that much is lost. So if I can say anything today I would like to call on us to remember our history, that we have a solemn agreement of 1870, and let's not panic in fear or pull all of these arguments down from the rafters. I believe that we must be a people who keep our word. I have been deeply involved with Native people for some time and they have remin ded me of the word that we have spoken in covenant and in agreement, and often we have broken that repeatedly.

Then I think we owe a great deal to the French people of Manitoba. I am one who discovered that I am in debt to Louis Riel. I don't believe there would be a Manitoba here if it were not for him and his own integrity and a history, I believe, that we have yet to really discover here in Manitoba. So I believe that he has pointed towards justice and we have a rich heritage of justice that we need to call on. And to remind ourselves that we are not living in the last ten years. I believe the issues before us are so fundamental that there is no need for referendu m, or even as it's been mentioned, for hearings.

They are basic rights. I can't really - or can we decide that a person shouldn't speak in their language and their culture. In closing I would like to say, remember the Native people, the Ukrainian people, the many other languages of this country that will not make us poor, but will bring us great richness and great resource, and I think will enable us to be held up before nations as not a small country or a thin country, but a great country of courage and a place to live and be. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Rev. McLa ughli n. Questions for Rev. McLaughlin from members of the committee? Mr.

Ashton. MR. S. ASHTON: I'd like to thank you for what I thought was a very thoughtful presentation. You obviously have had the opportunity to travel and I've had some opportunity myself. I was wondering if you found what I have often found, that people in other countries, view Canada in terms of our many cultur es and our many languages and that sometimes perhaps that vision exceeds our own vision of ourselves. I found in Eu rope, for example, people have a very high opinion of Canada in that context and that perhaps sometimes we could learn from the opinion other people have of ourselves? MR. CHAIRMAN: Rev.

McLaughlin. MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, I have discovered other people will approach me in another language because I come from Canada. Also, I have had some contact with Laotian people who have come to this country and have, as they arrived in the middle of the night discovered that they could communicate in a language that they knew. Some of the families that we've been involved with spoke four languages but, yes, found that they could communicate. Also that some of the legal documents were in French which was a great asset to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Furthe r qu estion for Rev. McLaughlin? Mr. Graham. 433 MR. H.

GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, through you to Rev. McLaughlin. Rev. McLaughlin, I want to say I apprecia ted very much the advice that you gave to our committee and the scholarly way in which you bring us back to some of the scriptur es that are really the foundation of laws in the very beginning. But, we're sitting here as a committee that is dealing with a very particular question and the question is whether or not the present Constitution of this province and of this country should be changed.

I would like to seek a little more advice from you and your wisdom on whether or not you think it should be changed? If so, in what manner? MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: Are you meaning that the Constitution be changed as to not be bilingual to clarify? MR. H. GRAHAM: At the present time the Constitution says that English and French can be used in the Legislature and in the courts and the Statutes and records shall be in both la ngua ges.

Now we are proposing to change that by this proposed amendment, that only some of the statutes shall be translated and adding a few fields in the services and limiting the service to the people in certain fields. MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: I would basically agree with that as it encourages and supports those services in Ste. Anne and other areas of Manitoba. I can see that to translate all of the statutes, for example, even some that had been out of date would be not all that helpful, but to use the resources in this way, I, in my opinion, would be a better way to go. MR. H. GRAHAM: Rev.

McLaughlin, do you see any implied problems that might occur when you entrench in a Constitution only certain services by implication? Does that omit any further services in the langu age field? MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: As I understand your question, I think it by its implication will be limited, but also, where services or rights are defined by law, that also gives freedom. I can tell you a story, Mr. Chairman, of a coloured person, who was just recently at the World Council of Chur ches, related that he a num ber of years back was in an airport. He went to a restaurant where it was apparently only white.

The waitr ess who came to him was flustered. She didn't know what to say; she didn't put down a menu; she went and got the manager. There was conversation he could see going on. Event ually, he was allowed some kind of service. In a few years following, it was by law that all persons were to be served. He found himself again in the same restaurant and by some accident the same waitress came to him, put down the menu, stood there and never blinked an eye. The law had an effect on the change of attitude and the response that was received. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We also find in the Province of Manitoba that there have been changes made in the services in the French language that have occurred through all governments of whatever political stripe. There have been changes that occurred. But when you do that by statute, then succeeding

Friday, 16 September, 1983 governments can add to it, or change it, and change can occur much easier . If you entrench it in a Constitution, then you are saying that the present-day government has the right to make that decision but no future government can have the right to change it. Do you see a danger in that type of procedure? MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: Moving into an area of law, and I can't say that I am fully proficient in that area by any means, I can see where another government, yes, would move it back if it were set out in that way.

Where changes are made and where that encourages development within people of new understandings and new awareness, then it maybe becomes not possible to change those back. Because, for example, as French Immersion grows and that becomes a common thing and people begin to be excited about another language and new discoveries, then that becomes a very positive thing and one that cannot be tu rned back because people have found the benefits from it. MR. H.

GRAHAM: You mentioned the French Immersion Program, I believe that was not brought about by any change in the Constitution but by the enactment of Statutes in this province. That is the very point that I was trying to bring out. If, by changing the Constitution, we limit services and exclude specifically municipal and school boards, what would the implication then be on future education and future municipal government by specifically excluding them from what we constitutionally hold as being sacred in this province? MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: I think you're going to have to clarify your question more.

You're dealing with another field and maybe you can put it another way. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to bring out probably is, there is a great deal of difference between statute law and constitutional law, and I'm not a lawyer either, but what we put into a constitutional law is one that is very very difficult to change at some time in the future. What you put in statute law can be changed and can be readily changed by succeeding governments of whatever political belief they may be to adapt to the constant changing needs of society.

But if we put into constitutional law the services that shall be provided as we are attempting to do by this very amendment, limiting the services to certain fields and excluding specifically municipal and school boards, would it not have a detrimental effect in the future to increase services in the French language here in the Province of Manitoba? MR. J. McLAUGHLIN: As I understand you, it sounds like the most positive route would be the constitutional method but, in my understanding, that's as much as I can comment on it. MR. H. GRAHAM: I want to thank you very much for the benefit of your views on it, Rev.

Mcla ughlin, and thank you very much for being here today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further qu estions for Rev. Mclau ghlin from members of the committee? Seeing none, Rev. Mclaughlin, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for appearing today. 434 Next on my list is Willis Ayers. Mr. Ayers, please. Reeve Nestor Slonowski, R.M. of Ethel bert. Reeve Slonowski, please. Dave Dohan, R.M. of Ethelbert. Mr. Dohan, please. Sister Mona Lewando wsk i. Sis ter Lewandows ki, please. Please proceed. MISS M. LEWANDOWSKI: Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee, it is with strong concern that I have decided to address you at these public hearings. Manitoba is known for its multicultural heritage. Its diversity is an example of tolerance and understanding. People of various origins live and work together side by side in respect of one another's cultural heritage. The fact of these public hearings indicates that the harmony of our cultural heritage is being threatened.

The rights of Francophones were guaran teed by The Manitoba Act and through this act all ethnic groups have been able to bring about the cultural diversity on which Manitobans pride themselves. That, Mr. Chairman, is my deepest concern. We have an obligation to reinstate the rights of the French­ speaking Manitobans which have been denied for 90 years. Manitoba owes it to itself to do so promptly and proudly so that the unity among cultural groups may continue and flourish rather than deteriorate.

By doing so, Manitoba can set an example for other provinces and for peoples throughout the world who are fighting for basic human rights. lt is with forceful conviction tha t I sup port the resolution to amend

Article 23 of the Manitoba Act as agreed on the 17 th of May, 1983. lt is my hope that the mem bers of the committee share my views. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sister Lewandowski. Questions by members of the committee, Mr. Brown. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sister Lewandowski, on your third paragraph you say, we have an obligation to reinstate the rights of the French­ speaking Manitobans which have been denied for 90 years. Do you realize that this already had been done in 19 80? MISS M. LEWANDOWSKI: I'm aware of that, yes. MR. A. BROWN: That they had been reinstated?

Do you think that we should go further now and entrench those rights at the present time with all the implications that come along with entren ching? MISS M. LEWANDOWSKI: Yes, I do. MR. A. BROWN: How do you perceive that other ethnic groups are going to receive any gu arantees by '"ntrenching the French langu age when it is only the English langu age and the French language that have been recognized as being official languages in Canada? MISS M.

LEWANDOWSKI: I think when you give the rights to the people that they originally had, that others can profit from it also. it seems to me in Manitoba - I'm not sure if all the other nationalities have received rights because of that, I'm not sure - but it seems to

Friday, 16 September, 1983 me that because French have the right, others have gained from it too. MR. A. BROWN: Do you think that by entrenc hing the language that this is going to give added benefits to other minorities? MISS M. LEWANDOWSKI: I'm not sure what is going to happen, but my feeling is that it will. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions, Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G.

LECUYER: In the line of the same question as the last posed, would you not agree, Si ster, that after the passage of Bill 113 in 1970 that Manitoba also saw a revival of the teaching of other modern langua ges and other ethnic langua ges in Manitoba which by law had disappeared along with the French language in 1916? MISS M.

LEWANDOWSKI: I just recall briefly Bill 113, but certainly in the last 10 to 15 years I have seen immersion courses where I never thought therere would be and Ukr ainian langu ages taught and it seems to me it has certainly blossomed for other groups, the languages have been allowed to be taught and spoken. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Further questions by members of the committee? Seeing none Si ster, thank you very much for being here today and making your presentation to the Committee. lsabelle Archambault? MS. I. ARCHAMBAUL T: Monsieur le President . . . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Would you wait one moment please while it's distributed. MS. I. ARCHAMBAUL T: Ceci est ma presentation. Aucune question s'il-vous-plait. Monsieur le president, membres du comite. Je desire enoncer quelque s idees dont on devrait tenir compte lorsqu'on decide si l'on doit appuyer ou non les amendements proposes a !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Premierement, il taut retenir le fait que la loi qui a interdit !'usage du fran9ais devant les tribunaux et au gouvernement a ete declaree anticonst itutionnelle.

A partir de ce fait, je ne peux pas m'expliquer toute !'hesitation du gouvernement et !'opposition d'une grande

partie de la population. Je ne peux comprendre que l' on refuse de re ctifier une loi "illega le". L'opposition que l'on manifeste depasse les bornes du raisonnement. Si l'on n'elimin e pas les lois "illegales", quelle valeur notre systeme judiciaire peut-il avoir? Si I' on continue a reconnaitre cette loi qui n'est pas legale, on doit remettre en question notre societe, notre gouvernement et toutes nos institutions. 11 va de soi que les fondements de notre civilisation elle-meme s'ecrouleraient.

La gravite d'une telle situation fait peur. 11 taut regler chez nous les problemes de langues officielles et il nous le taut faire sans plus de delais. Monsieur le president, membres du comite, j'accorde mon appui a la resolution negociee au mois de mai 435 pour amender !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Je ne peux pas faire autrement. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Archambault, for your presentation to the comm ittee today. Arthur Milette. Is Arthur Milette here? I would point out to members before Mr.

Milette speaks that his name was misspelled on the list, as a few others have been. it's M-1-L-E-T-T -E, Milette. MR. A. MILETTE: Merci, Monsieur le President. MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment please. MR. A. MILE TTE: Comme mon gamin me dit souvent MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MR. A. MILE TTE: Monsieur le President, mon nom se prononce Milette. Monsieur le President, membres du comite. Mon bref aujourd'hui ne porte pas plain te ni condamnation a n'im porte qui. Pour ceci, je ne repondrai pas de questions apres mon bref. Je veux seulement presenter mon bref et retourner a l'ouvrage. Merci.

Je viens vous exprimer mon appui a la resolution negociee au mois de mai 1983 entre le gouvernement du Manitoba et la Societe franco-manitobaine pour amender !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Si j'appuie !'entente telle que negociee, c'est que je crois qu'elle represente une juste reconnaissance des droits des Franco- Manitobains, droits qui ont ete negliges depuis 1890. Par ailleurs, j'appuie egalement la Societe franco-manitobaine et le gouvernement de cette province qui ont negocie cette entente.

La Societe franco-manitobaine est le representante officielle des Franco-Manitobains en autant que le gouvernement est le representant de la population de cette province. 11 est tout-a-fait a-propos, Messieurs, que votre comite tienne des audiences dans cette region du Manitoba. Sachez que les villages de Ste-Rose-du-Lac, Makinak, Lau rier , Ste-Amelie, Toutes Ai des et McCr eary representent un veritable ilot de I' est du Manitoba qui fut colonise par des Fran9ais.

Heureux seraient-ils de constater aujourd' hui que le gouvernement manitobain s'appr ete a restorer les droits des francophones de cette merveilleuse province qu'ils ont si vaillamment contribue a construire Le fait a toujours ete une realite au Manitoba. L'histoire de la region de Ste-Rose-du-Lac en est un temoignage. C'etait l'epoque de l'entraide. La famille Spence, la famille Neault, la famille Sutherla nd, la famille Ritchot, ou encore la famille Riel, elles avaient toutes le meme but - construire un chez-nous, une province, un pays.

Si les gens ont voulu doter leur pays d'une constitution fidele a leur differente realite linguistique, c'etait par respect mutuel. Ce respect mutuel que nous enseignent nos ancetres doit continuer . Le projet d'amendement de I'

article 23 est I' expression concentree de ces respects et ne peut done qu'e tre applaudi. Monsieur le President, membres du comite, je vous remercie d'avoir choisi Ste-Rose-du-Lac comme endroit

Friday, 16 September, 1983 pour ces audiences publiqu es. Encore une fois, je reaffirme mon appui au projet d'amendement de I'

article 23 tel que negocie au mois de mai dernier entre la Societe franco-manitobaine et le gouvernement du Manitoba. Respectueusement v6tre. MR. CHAIRMAN: Merci Monsieur Milette. Next on my list is Gisele L'Heureux. Please proceed. MS. G. l'HEUREUX: Monsieur le President. membres du comite. Je suis heur euse de me presenter devant vous aujourd'hui afin de vous exprimer de vive voix mon appui a la resolution pour amender I'

article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba, telle que negociee au mois de mai. Je tiens a vous devoiler et a vous faire partager la fierte que je ressens a vivre dans une Province qui enfin reconnait le fran.;:ais comme l'une des langues officielles de celle-ci. Depuis mes premiers pas. j' ai eu a me battre pour sauvegarder la langue que mes ancetres m'ont transmise. A leur arriv ee au Manitoba, ceux-ci ne se douterent certainement pas que leurs descendants se verraient dans l'avenir defavorises dans leur langue et cultur e et amoindrir la joie et la fierte d'appartenir a l'un des peuples fondateurs.

Certains ont eu plus de difficultes que d'autres a combattre !'assimilation et ont ainsi perdu langue, culture et richesse d'un passe fort glorieux. Heureusement, malgre bien des lois etablies ne nous favorisant pas dans l'entetement que nous avions de sauvegarder notre langue et la richesse du patrimoine, plusieurs ont su faire front et imposer la fierte d'etre francophone alors que de tous cotes, les structures d'un avenir se voyaient attaquees et demolies.

Je suis bien . . . de constater que les amendements a !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba vont, dans un avenir rapproche, retablir les injustices faites aux francophones de cette province. Ainsi, ceux-ci pourront profiter de services et de droits qui leurs ont ete refuses lors des trois dernieres genera tions, lesquelles, je le souligne, ont aide a construire le Manitoba.

Aussi, je suis heureuse de pouvoir penser que mes descendants pourront jouir de vivre dans une province qui sachent respecter leurs droits et serais fiere de leur dire que nos luttes n'ont pas ete vai nes. puisqu'enfin un gouv ernement responsable a su voir dans l'histoire de cette province, la necessite de reta blir les injustices passees. Enfin, Monsieur le President, membres du comite, je reiter e done mon appui a la resolution pour amender !'article 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba, telle que negociee au mois de mai. J'ai merais mieux pas repondre de questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Madame L'Heureux.

Next on our list, Sister :ielene St-Amant. Sister St-Amant please. Ovide Pelletier . Herve Molgat. David Grey, Indian & Met is Friend ship Centre. Mr. Grey, please. MR. D. GREY: Mr. Chairman, mem bers of the Committee, I would start out by deviating slightly from the written text and thanking you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I would also apologize for our inability to present this at the hearings which were heard in Swan River.

Unfortuna tely, they were trap ped in a memory typewriter . 436 The Board of Directors of the Swan River Indian & Met is Friendship Centre supports the original proposal of the Government of Manitoba with respect to the accord reached between the Province of Manitoba, the Government of Canada and the SFM. We do not expect, or for the most part, feel that the amendments - here we speak of the amendments to the accord - as proposed, either significantly benefit or appreciably clarify the accord.

We feel strongly that the province is legally, logically and morally bound and obligated to proceed with due dispatch to rectify the problems that have been created in this longstanding misunderstanding. The only amendments to the accord we specifically support are in the giving of special recognition to existing rights or privi leges other than those for English or French languages.

In addition, we urge the committee to continue to search for consensus on the issue of a definition for "significant demand." The Swan River Friendship Centre has the history as set out, and is inv olved in assisting Indians in adjusting to urban life and create mutual understanding between people of Indian descent and others; to inform the community of the problems of Indians; and to carry on these objectives without political or pecuni ary gain.

One might reasonably ask what the Friendship Centre, being a non-pol itic al in stituti on, is doing making statements on what has now become a highly political, partisan issue. Simply put, we do not believe that any persons making this a partisan issue are act ing appropriately to the situation. We feel the issue is, as we have previously staterl, a legal, logical and moral one. We are fully cognizant of the expressions which deline ate politics as being any activity which tends toward the order of society. We are, and will remain, prepar ed to be political in that sense.

We are not, and will not be prepared to favour or denounce any partisan group or individual whether in municipal, school board, provincial or federal political contests. No comments herein should be interpr eted in this way. The long suit, if you will, of our presentat ion, is moderation. For this committee to be effective, neither end of the spectrum must be allowed to prevail. lt is apparent, from the public controversy that has ensued, that our society is already of two minds on this issue.

On one extreme are the individuals who feel that there should be no change in The Manitoba Act and/or that the French language services should not be delivered. On the other hand are the individuals who ask for instantaneous recogni tion, measu res to correct all wrongs of 80 years, and entrenchment for all, no matter what the cost. The Committee should remember that even if it were to hear 1, 000 presentations, each presentation would have to speak for 1, 000 individuals to say that each Manitoban had been fairly represented herein.

We say that this decision is too important in any event to be decided on partisan issues, "popular" compromise (as was done in 18 96 and thereafter), or ;�iving in to extremists' views. We urge the committee to decide on the basis of equity and fairness, not on votes and radicalism. We view this issue in the same way that we view the intrusion or lack thereof by this and other governments in the daily rights of minorities or individuals. John Stewart Mill in "On Liberty" said: "The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most nu merous or the

Friday, 16 September, 1983 most active part of the people; the majority, or tho se who succeed in mak ing thems elves accepted as the ma jor ity: the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their num ber; and precautions are as much needed against this, or against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of the government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, the strongest party therein.

This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intell igence of th ink ers and to the inclin ation of tho se important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, had had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in poli tical speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requir es to be on its guard." With due respect to the opposite view, we respectfully concur with his remarks. In looking at philosophical founders for the Western thought, one naturally returns to Plato and Aristotle.

From them through Augustine, Hobbes, Rousseau, Mill, to Skinner at present, people when discussing society have relied upon nuclear units as a substantive deter mination of societal direction. lt is true that Skinner attacked the family and reinserted the colony therefore. The essence, nonetheless, of his remarks, remains very much a nuclear unit. In a family, at least, we submit, in a healthy family, if one member chooses to express differences it is, we would submit, an unusual occurence where the family would either expel the member or demand a change in the expression of difference.

The obvious exception to this is if the acts or expression are unhealthy or harmful. We submit that no case can, in this larger unit-Manitoba, be made for the restriction of French language services. We feel that entrenc hment of all fundamental rights is an important step needed to protect and buffer groups, and in particular in this instance Frenc h-speak ing Manit obans, from the capricious whims of the majority.

In "The Social Contract" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he said: "To speak of a man giving himself in return for no thi ng is to speak of what is ab surd, unthinkable, such an action would be illegitimate, void, if only because no one who did it would be in his right mind.

To say the same of a whole people is to conjure up a nation of lunatics; and right cannot rest on madness." He goes on to say, several pages later: "If th en we elimin ate from the social pact everyt hing that is not essential to it, we find it comes down to this: 'Each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole."' The emphasis has been added.

At this point, I would indicate that I juxtaposed that with the remarks of Mill previously, and would indicate that I feel - and I'll go on to read. If we allow the theory that society is based upon mutual accord through an original contract, we can see protection of the rights as originally determined 437 by members of that society as fundamental to the health of that society. We feel that the provisions of The Manitoba Act presently lawfully require certain actions from the Province of Manitoba and that, since 1890, the province has breached several fundamental covenants on this agreement.

The time is now to end this unwarranted action. As Louis Riel said to Dominion Su rveyors, by his action, erosion of fundamental rights must be stopped at the starting point. We say that if time goes by, once the wrong is recognized, corrective measures must be taken. We feel the Province of Manitoba should not be allowed out of its bargain any more than one would expect Deiter Brock to be. Our position is not based upon direct need in our Friendship Centres to provide the services.

In the area which we serve, the Swan River area, we will probably fall far shor t of the significant demand called for in the original proposal. Few of our constituents use French as a primary language, if at all. Nonethele ss, we see it incumbent upon us to speak out on these moral issues. We view society, more particularly Manitoban society, as a rare fabric woven from many distinguished cloths, and we feel that the deletion of any cloth or any part thereof is not only uncalled for and unnecessary but should be and is an unpopular view in totality. We have a "larger view" of society as well.

We do not, however, view Manitoba as a province which can or should be based upon absolute rule by majority. lt is rule by and for one million individual minorities. We are not tilting at windmills. We are asking for a recognition of fundamental rights. While it is not within the purview of this committee, we feel that certain other actions by the Governments of British Columbia and Manitoba fall into the same category as failing to support entrenchment of French language services.

In particul ar, the rationales are similar. lt is the decision of the Province of British Columbia in depriving its citizens of long-established and hard-won rights vis-a-vis labour relations and the recent decision in Manitoba to impose mandatory seat belt and helmet legislation. The reason we view them the same is th at all the main argume nts for all propositions revolve around economic issues. We do not see society built thusly. We see society and the rights of each individual in society as of far larger significance than economics.

Certain ly, we don't mean to be interpr eted as saying tha t economic considerations are not imp ortant. However, if we allow economic consideration to dictate the parame ters of our discussion, we lose much of the societal strength that exists in the democracy. The essence of our societal strength, we submit, is flexibility, tolerance and diversity. We view argu ments which limit those considerations with some skepticism.

In short, we're speaking out because our idea of Manitoba is made up of these individual minorities. lt is incumbent upon each of those minorities to guard particularly against the tyranny of the majority. We feel the major concern of this committee is not whether or not to entrench these guarantees. This, it is submitted, in the present state of affairs, is self­ evident. We feel that the committee can have a large impact in deter mining upon whom the onus rests to show whether or not the signifi cant demand for French services exists. We agree, probably with most, that

Friday, 16 September, 1983 French language services are not and should not be provided when there is no real call for them. However, we feel the onus should be upon the government to show that no demand exists in any particular area since it, by far, has greater monetary and human resources to determine same. We further feel that the term "signif icant demand" cannot be simply a percentage. Nor can necessarily one person be or not be a sign of "significant demand." There must be a balancing of all factors to determine where such a demand exists.

In the case of legislation or court services, one person may be a significant demand. In the case of education, the number may be one or 20. In the case of providing a bilingual service from the Civil Service, perhaps the test should be on a percentage of requests in Fren ch. We are not able to suggest to the committee what specific components should be.

However, the committee should look, inter alia, at these factors: the percentage of the popula tion with fi rst tongue of French or demanding French; what individual or class of individual would be harmed by failure to deliver the service; what effect would that failure have upon the individual; what effect could that failure have upon our cultural fabric; the timing requ ired; and, leastly we would submit, economic considerations. Much ado has been made about the economic issues arising herefrom.

We submit there are three main areas of concern: first ly, the cost of these proceedings; secondly, the cost of delivery of services; and lastly, the cost of future appeals. We submit the first and last considerations are moot. Now the decision to hold these hearings has been made, to subject to scrutiny the costs of same are an affront to the legislative/committee process. Certainly these hearings should be expeditious, but we welcome, notwithstanding the cost, the chance to speak to you.

Of the last, I can only say that we cannot say if there will be future appeals, what the costs will be, or how these costs compare in relation to the costs if we make no change. We feel this argument might be made for any pi ece of legislatio n or constitutio nal amendment. The cost of delivery, we believe, is a factor in deter mining "significant demand." lt doesn't cost, however, any more to hire a bilingual citizen than a unilingual person. We support the concept of all citizens even tua lly being bil ingual or even (heaven forbid) multilingual. While it is not moot, it is a lesser factor than may be urged.

We would point those who say their costs are oppressive to an analogy of taxations. If one were not to pay one's taxes for 80 years, it is doubtful that any government would allow that person to not only not pay the 80 years of back taxes but not to pay his or her taxes in the future. Once can scarcely imagine a taxpayer who, being given the opportunity to pay 10 percent of his back taxes and to simply pay his future taxes, would refuse on the grounds, look how high my taxes are now. While we support the concept of minority rights, we believe this issue has both a philosophic and pragmatic point of view.

We are urging this committee to suggest to the Legislature that it pay its 10 percent share of taxes. We remind the committee of the historic reasons for inclusion of French in The Manitoba Act and while Constitutions and arguments may not be the end results (they may be merely tools), one should not change 438 goals so quickly in midstream. Our society is not static, but no case has been made to show that sufficient change has taken place to change the Constitution of the Province of Manitoba.

In conclusion, we feel that legally the province has obligated itself to the terms of The Manitoba Act, and this view is vindic ated by the Supreme Court decision in Forest. In logic and in common sense, one is led to the inexorable conclusion that the majority does not necessarily mean the right. We remember that the important discoveries in history have been brought about, for the main part, not by the majority but have been provided by extra-ordinary individuals. If we give in to the tyranny of the majority, we lose that capacity.

Morally, The Manitoba Act represents a legacy of unkept promises which should not be allowed to stand. Because of the neglect of past generations, this generation of Frenc h-speaking Franco-Manitobans has been asked to accept less than they or their forefathers have and had a right to expect. We reject this request. We support the entrenchment of the rights set out in the accord in the Constitution. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grey. Are there any questions for Mr. Grey from members of the committee? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Grey, there seems to be some contradictions in some of the things that you have said. You said at the very last, and it's not on here, that you support the changes, the amendments. Yet, in your second-last paragr aph, the last sentence, you say, "Our society is not static, but no case has been made to show that sufficient change has taken place to change the Const itution." Now that seems to be a completely opposite point of view. Can you tell me which one you really support? MR. D. GREY: The contradiction is more apparent than real, Mr. Chairman.

The fact of the matter is that The Manitoba Act delin eates the purview of Manitoba at this time. We support entrenchment in the Constitution absolutely. We do support the accord. The writers of this were indicating at that point that they did not believe tha t reduction of the services provided would be appropriate. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well I won't pursue that any furt her. I think you have told us where you stand on that. We'll go back to, I believe, it's Page 4 of your brief.

In the second paragraph, the last sentence, you state, "H owever, we feel that the onus must be upon the government to show that no demand exists in any particular area since it, by far, has greater monetary and human resources to determine same." If we put forward or move forward and entrench in the Constitution the proposals that are put forward in this motion, th en we would be tak ing away from the government the right to determine what services should be in place and should not and that decision would then be left to the courts. Could you ela borate on that, please? MR. D.

GREY: With respect to that, the honourable member is correct that indeed entrenchment will take

Friday, 16 September, 1983 away from governments the type of service that will be provided. The word, "area" therein does not refer to the type of service. lt refers to geographic locations. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, the proposal that is put before us by the government, and it's a proposal to change

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act and leaves a field - and I notice you have addressed it later on and before - with the area that, wherever signifi cant demand is prevalent. But the resolution before us very specifically lays out a proposal and a format for that to be resolved. lt says, where anyone feels that he has been aggrieved, he can apply to the courts, and the courts can then make a declaration and so on and so forth. That seems to be at variance with the brief that you have put forward to us.

Are you suggesting then in your brief that proposal be changed and, the area for significant demand is requested by any individual in society, that decision be left with the government rather than with the courts? MR. D. GREY: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I am going to have to ask for clarification of the question. MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't follow the question either. Mr. Graham, could you try again please? MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Grey, you say that the onus should be upon the government to decide, to determine where this significant demand is.

Yet, the proposal before us very specifically leaves that decision with the courts and not with the government. MR. D. GREY: I understand the que stion now, Mr. Chairman. The concern that you have, I believe, is addressed properly by the active verb in the phrase, "to show," and it is my intention that the government would be, of course - if the matter were taken to court, it would seem apparent that it would be the Government of the Day that would be acting in opposition to the appli cation. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, just to clarify a point, it's not my concern. lt appears to be the concern of your group that is presenting this brief. I just wanted a further clarification of what your concerns are, and what direction you would like this to go, whether it should be the government or whether it should be the courts that make the determination. MR. D. GREY: Mr. Chairman, the paragraph in total and particularly the last phrase refer to an evidentiary onus. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: First, Mr. Grey, I would like to say that I was indeed very impressed with your brief.

I think it is the fruit of a great deal of research and effort. My que stion relates to the last sentence of the second last paragraph where you say, "Our society is not static, but no case has been made to show that sufficient change has taken place to change the Constitution." I believe I understand what you're wanting to say, but 439 I just want to make sure that is the case. Are you saying by that, that we should not be changing or introducing this amendment, or that we should not be repealing the existing clause of the Constitution? MR. D.

GREY: I am saying that entrenc hment, as concluded in my paragraphs, of the accord is what we are in support of, both on economic and all the other grounds. We do not support, and this is what the paragraph particularly refers to, absolute repeal of

Section 23. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you very much. That's what I had understood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further que stions? Seeing none, Mr. Grey, thank you to you and your centre for being here and being represented today. Lois Dumont. Lois Dumont, please. Alfred Dressier, the Grandview Town Council. Mr. Dressier. He!IEme Montsion. Alvier Brunei. lrene Lecomte. Louis Saquet. Please proceed. MR. l. SAQUET: Monsieur le President, membres du comite. Les aines de Laurier d'origine franvaise qui ont toujours parle leur langue maternelle et travaille a la promotion du franvais, supportons la resolution qui a ete negociee au mois de mai dernier pour amender I'

Article 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba;

article qui retablit le franvais et l'anglais comme langues officielles et defini la responsa bilite du gouvernement a offrir des services en franvais aux francophones du Manitoba. Nous les aines, desirons etre assures d'obtenir des services en franvais dans le domaine de la sante, des h6pitaux, les foyers pour personnes agees, les bureaux de la mu nicipa li te, de l'imp 6t, les bib lio theq ues publiques, les services telephoniques, hydro, police, chemin de fer, etc . . .

Le besoin de ces services que je mentionne ne va pas cesser de croitre vu le nombre toujours croissant d'ecoles d'immersion et d'eleves qui ap prennent le franvais. Donnons done a la jeune generation les moyens de pratiquer la langue qu'ils appr ennent sur les banes d'ecole. Est-ce qu'en 18 90, la population du Manitoba a-t­ elle ete consultee pour les changements operes a ce temps-la? Pourquoi done aujourd'hui en 1983 faut-il en referer au public? ' L'

Article 23 ne doit pas etre une question de politique, mais une question de justice. Nous demandons done au gouv ernement avant de poser des gestes irresponsables de bien reflechir sur la portee de leurs decisions. Monsieur le President, membres du comite, comme porte-parole du club d'age d'or de Laurier, je vous remercie de m'avoir donne !'occasion de faire conna1tre notre point de vue sur la resolution. Merci. MR. CH AIRM AN: Merci Monsieur Saquet. Any questions from members of the Committee? Hearing none, ... Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Merci le President. Monsieur Saquet, dans votre avant dernier paragraphe, quand vous lancez un avertissement au gouvernement de bien

Friday, 16 September, 1983 reflechir avant de poser des gestes irresponsables, est­ ce que par la, vous voulez dire, en vue de ne pas apporter de nouveaux amendements, ou si vous voulez tout simplement lancer cet avertissement pour assurer que J'amendement propose soit passe. MR. L SAQUET: Si nous revenons a !'article premiere, premier paragraphe que nous supportons la resolution qui avail negociee au mois de mai dernier. MR. G. LECUYER: Je comprends. Merci Monsieur le President. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questio ns by members of the committee. Seeing none . . . MR.

L SAQUET: Est-ce que vous me permettez, Monsieur le President, que je cite une petite anecdote qui m' est arrivee a propos d'hopital, sujet a la langue encore? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MR. L. SAQUET: 11 y a quelq ues annees, je me trouvais a l'hopital St-B oniface, c'est-a-dire dans l'h6pital comme patient, ayant subit une intervention chirurgique. Un jour, un interne, medecin, est venu me demander de servir d'interprete parce qu'il devait donner des, faire subir des tests a une dame qui etait malade.

Alors, si il taut en referer aux patients pour pouvoir communiquer avec, entre les medecins et patients, il y a quelque chose qui ne fonctionne pas. Un autr e incident a propos de langue, encore, c'est qu'i l y a quelques semaines, mon epouse, un dimanche soir, voulant aller a Winnipeg, prendre le train Canadien National. C'etait les dix, onze heur es du soir. Elle telephone a Winnipeg. A Winnipeg, I' employe ne pouvait pas communiquer en franc;:ais, done il l'a refere a un employe a Montreal. Natur ellement, un employe de Montreal ne pouvait pas savoir a quelle heure un train passerait sur notre petite ligne.

Ni quel jour ... C'est voici les Jacunes qu'il y a actuellement dans les services de langues franc;:aises. Maintenant, je veux bien croire que les services du Canadien National n'ont aucun rapport avec ce que nous discutons aujourd' hui, mais vous me permettez, Monsieur le President et membres du comite . . . ceci est une remarque que je fais a

titre personne lle. J'ai donne les sept meilleures annees de ma vie et une

partie de ma sante dans le dernier conflit mondial pour sauvegarder la soi-disant liberte et justice. Done, par consequent, il est inconcevable qu'il y est des politicians qui s'opposent ac e que justice soit rendue au peuple canadien-franc;:ais de la province du Manitoba. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Saquet for your presentation here this afternoon. Next on our list is Rose-Anne Verley. Please proceed. MS. R. VERLEY: Monsieur le President, membres du comite.

Les habitants du Manitoba sont consternes depuis que le gouv ernement manitobain parle d'a mender !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba et d'ainsi restituer les droits des Franco-Manitobains. 440 Cette consternation me depasse. Je ne peux comprendre, je ne comprends pas que l'on puisse s'opposer avec tant d'acharnement a une loi qui se veut de reparer, je dis bien reparer, un tort terrible commis il y a 90 ans. A bien y penser d'ailleurs, quelle loi pourrait redonner ce que les Franco-Manitobains ont perdu pendant 90 ans? 11 me semble que la reponse est evidente a tout homme de bonne volonte.

Monsieur le President, le present gouvernement neo­ democrate tente de donner un second depart a la vie franc;:aise dans la province, et il a raison. Car, aucun gouvernement, aucun parti politique, aucun individu, d'un pays civilise, n'a le droit d'empecher que justice soit faite aux francophones de la province du Manitoba. Les Franco-Manitobains ont ete tenances pendant tout ce temps. Nous ne devons pas les laisser tomber. Je le repete, j'appuie la resolution qui a ete negociee au mois de mai pour amender !'article 23 de l'Acte du Manitoba.

J' espere, Monsieur le President, membres du comite, que vous n'hesiterez pas a vous prononcer en faveur de cette resolution. Je vous en fais confiance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mrs. Verley. Any questions by members of the Committee? Mr. Scott? MR. D. SCOTT: D1re simplement merci pour ton presentation et je crois que c·est a cause de les personnes comme toi qu'on a encore ici au Manitoba la langue franc;:aise. Merci Madame. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from members of the Committee. Seeing none, Madam Verley, thank you very much for your presentation today. Next on the list, Mr. Roy Laycock. Mr. Laycock, please.

MR. R. LAYCOCK: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, fellow citizens. lt is with regret that I find myself compelled to speak out in regard to an issue which is serving no other real purpose but to divide a province, as well as many small communities. We, as Manitobans, over the past 10 0 years, have come a long way and it has been mainly due to the working together of people of all ethnic groups, working towards a common goal, making this a better province in which to live.

The issue which we are discussing here today has been brought to the fore by one man challenging the validity of legislation passed in 18 90. The Supreme Court ruling on this case is at issue here. Just because the courts decided that the legislation passed in 18 90 was illegal does not necessarily mean that this legislation was wrong or without merit We have to use common sense in situations.

I have no arguments with the amendments as such, except the one extending services in government Jt is the court ruling and us, as Manitobans, being forced to comply with this ruling which is as outdated as the horse and buggy. This legislation may have made some sense in 18 79 but it is not feasible today.

If it is the intent of the government to make this province a truly bilingual province then I would suggest that they start where it would be more fruitful in yielding results, mainly the education system, taking the funds that they are no doubt going to spend on implementing this archaic law and using it where it is sadly needed in the education system of our province.

Friday, 16 September, 1983 French Immersion is one good example of this. Let our legislators get together and do something which will make sense today, not fight over what was done over 10 0 years. If you wonder why a person would not welcome this legislation being resurrected to its original intent, I have one reason in particu lar. Ther e undou btedly will be a few jobs in the province which will be designated as bilingual as to limit the people who would be eligible for the position. I have a son, now in uni versity. He does not have a second language. He will not be eligible for some of these jobs.

I then contend that mine as well as his rights as Manitobans have been violated, because the government has not made adequate monies available to the school boards to offer people courses to make our children truly bilingual. Then, and only then, would this legislation make any sense. To carry this a step further, if we could achieve the bilingual goal, there would, in fact, be no need for the legislation and then we could print our laws and Minutes and tax notices in either language and have them understood. Common sense, gentlemen, common sense. Let's all try to use a little of this.

I could name a num ber of wrongs that were committed in the last 100 years. Let 's not waste time and tax dollars doing things that don't really accomplish much, except to satisfy a few egos. Let's come up with some good alternatives that would fit the times we live in. Thank you. MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you , Mr. Lay cock. Any questions please, Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairma n. Mr. Laycock, you refer to an archaic law and wasting funds on an archaic law. I don't know if you realize, Mr.

Laycock, I presume in stating this - and you correct me if I'm wrong - you are stating perhaps that in implementing the law of 18 70 today as it was passed then, even though this was not abided to for almost 100 years, that we would be spending a lot of funds, for instance, in the translation of laws and statutes, even some that have no bearing today. I hope you realize, or do you realize that if the Accord that has been referred to is passed, that by far the large majority of these will not be required to be translated. MR. R. LAYCOCK: That's with the amendments. MR. G. LECUYER: That's right. MR. R.

LAY COCK: The amendments that are proposed. I said I have no quarrel with the amendments. The thing that I'm getting at is the original law. Now, it can stay on the books as far as I'm concerned. it can stay, it can be passed, or put on, it's the implementation of such that I'm concerned with. We're going to spend money implementing these laws. Like you say, if you don't get these amendments through, we have to go through the whole shmear, all of us. it's going to cost us a bundle. Why not spend that money where it'll do more good. Make our children truly bilingual. Is that not the point?

Is that not the concern of all these people? 441 Let's forget about the wrangling political end of it, let's get down to brass tacks. We have a Federal Government pumping money in to promote this very thing in the province. Let the Federal Government, if they want to kick some funds in, kick them in where they will do the most good - in education. I would like my son to have a second language. In the school division we're in, it's just not possible, the funds aren't available. You can't have a qualified French teacher in a school the size the Rorketon has.

Beside the point, the courses that are taught from junior high, I don't know if you're familiar with them, they are not really that good at making people bilingual. The courses have to be changed. That's getting off the subject. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Laycock, what you're saying then, if I understand your correctly is: yes, you agree with the amendments proposed, but what you would also like to see is monies used perhaps to a greater degree or to a better degree in terms of providing better bilingual education? MR. R.

LAYCOCK: Yes, but the one point with the amendments that I took exception to was putting it into more government offices. That will deprive my children of jobs, I feel. I feel that I am being unjustly treated, I really do. MR. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I can understand your point of view there, but what you're saying is that in designating certain government service positions as bilingual, you have a certain objection there because you see that would not allow you the same opportun ity, or would not allow your son who is already out of the school system the same opportun ity.

But would you not agree by the same token that if you support providing better bilingual education that it will give that much greater opportunity for those who are to come and who will recieve that better bilingual education?

Also, would you not agree that by the time the provisio n for services come into effect in 19 87, according to the school projections that I have seen, at that time the projections are for 30,000 students coming out of the Francais and Immersion programs, 20,000 students coming out of the Core French Pilot Program and 60,000 students in the Conversat ional French Program, do you not think that there will tohen be the kind of population that you are talking about to fill in these positions to provide the services which you agree with? MR. R.

LAYCOCK: Just an extension of the disparity between urban and rural centres; that is all you are promoting with that. Your rural areas are the places that don't have the opportunity to get the bilingual courses offered. Now, if I lived in the City of Winnipeg I could probably find bilingual services offered in schools. Another thing is, if things were equal, I wouldn't have to pay to keep my son in Winnipeg at the universi ty, but they are not. Equality doesn't exist in the Province of Manitoba. MR. G. LECUYER: I think what you're saying then, Mr. Laycock, is you want greater opportunity and what I've

Friday, 16 September, 1983 heard, many people ask, greater opportunity of equal ity. What you are saying is, or perhaps would you not agree, that in providing greater availability of services that this also greater availability or accessibility into the rural area might be one of the effects that will come out of it. MR. R. LAVCOCK: By government services being extended, do you think that it would .. MR. G. LECUVER: What I'm asking is: will this not perhaps have an effect on providing greater accessibility in bilingua l education thr oughout the province? MR. R. LAVCOCK: Not in my mind, no.

I think that after the smoke has cleared, it'll be swept under the rug and forgotten all about. The real problem, not being a totally bilingual province, will still be there. The only way we're going to get a bilingual province is by educating the children bilingual ly. If you want a bilingual province and you're really serious about it and not trying to make political points, that's the route you will all go. Don't you as legislators have the power to change laws or to take monies and have them channelled into certain areas? That's what you're there for.

I'm sure you'll find that the majority of the people in the Province of Manitoba will probably agree that we don't need all these laws and everything else. All we need is bilingualism, as such. MR. G. LECUVER: I want to assure you, Mr. Laycock, that I have no disagreement with you on that score. All I can say, and all I feel that has happened is that in the last 10, 13 years, there has been a great deal of progress in terms of accessibility and availability of bilingual education.

I guess all I can conclude with is sharing the same hope that you have exp ressed that this will continue so that it can become available and accessible everywhere in the province. MR. R. LAVCOCK: You see, you don't have one problem that I have. All I've heard is how we treat minority groups, and we don't treat them very well. I consider myself a minority. When I go into offices, be it the Unemployment Insur ance office looking for job or if I go into the post office and I flip through leaflets, half of the jobs I'm looking at say, bilingual.

That's one of the criteria for the job, you have to be bilingual, which I am not. So that's a strike against me right there. lt is against a lot of young children from mainly rural communities that don't have this opportunit y. If a person really and truly has the opportunity to get a good French language and then blows it, then they have no quarrel, but people can't get it and don't. So I think we're the ones who are really being hard done by when it comes right down to it. Thank you. MR. A. BROWN: Mr.

Laycock, we do not have a copy of your brief before us but, if I remember correctly in one of your opening statements, you made the statement that we are here today because of the activities of one man who challenged the validity of a law passed in 18 90, that was the law to make Manitoba unilingual, is that correct? 442 MR. R. LAVCOCK: That's right. MR. A. BROWN: Were you refer ring to George Forest? MR. R. LAVCOCK: Yes, I was. MR. A.

BROWN: Were you aware that in the brief that George Forest presented to this committee that he is opposed to the amendment that is now being presented because he says by going entrenchment we are going too far and that this was never intended? Were you aware of this? MR. R. LAVCOCK: Yes, and I agree with him to that extent. MR. A. BROWN: If I read your presentation correctly, or I have listened to your presentation correctly, then you really are in favour of the amendment, but you are opposed in the way in which it is being implemented, is that correct? MR. R.

LAVCOCK: Yes, I'm opposed to the way it's being implemented and just the idea behind it because I really think that it's serving no real purpose. As I say, all this is doing is helping to divide the province and I don't think we need any more of that. I think we have to start working together and if bilingualism is going to work and if we want to be bilingual, if we truly do, most people say yes, but then they don't. If we truly want to be bilin gual, the only way to do it through the education system. You and I will never be bilingual, probably. MR. G. LECUVER: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to correct for the record that Mr. Brown 's understanding of what Mr. Forest has said is certainly notemy understan ding of what he has said. I don't know it that is in order, Mr. Chairman, to do so, but when Mr. Brown says that Mr. Forest's point of view is that he is not in favour of the entrenchment of these amendments because this is going too far, this is definitely not what I have heard him say. He would prefer the court to settle the matter and stop with the first clause which says: French and English are the official langua ges of Manitoba.

He says that covers all, but that is far from saying the same thing as Mr. Brown has just stated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lecuyer. I would caution members that when we bring in additional material, rather than just seek clarification, then these differences occur. I would say, Mr. Lecuyer, you probably were out of order but, at the same time, the matter having been raised, we do run into the difficulty then of dealing with additional material that was not part of the brief. Further questions for Mr. Laycock, Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to Mr.

Laycock, really it's not a question, I just want to thank Mr. Laycock for presenting what I think is probably a very forthright and different view than has been expressed by most of the people we have heard so far. it's through expressions of opinions such as yours that we get a broader perspective of the

Friday, 16 September, 1983 whole Manitoba mosaic and I want to thank you for putting forward your views here today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Laycock, thank you very much. I think Mr. Graham has expressed the sentiments of the committee. Next on our list Claudette Gingras, Claudette Gingras. David Dunning, Mr. Dunning, please. Are you Mr. Dunning? MR. D. DUNNING: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok ay, would you like your copies returned that you supplied to the Clerk then? MR. D. DUNNING: Ok ay, fine. MR. CH AIRMAN: That comple tes, la dies and gentlemen, the first run-through on the list.

I'll now ask if any of those who were absent earlier are present this afternoon. Is there a representative here from Manitoba 23? Mayor Maillard, Village of Ste. Rose. MR. R. MAILLARD: Mr. Chairman, honourable guests, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the residents of Ste. Rose, I wish to extend a hearty welcome to our visitors. De la part des citoyens de Ste-Rose, je souhaite la plus cordiale bienvenue a tous nos visiteurs. After consulting numerous people from our villa ge, council wishes to express the following feel ings felt within our community.

There is no question in our minds that the French language rights should justly be recognized, and that right has been denied since 18 90. Ho wever, by amending The Manitoba Act and attempting to designate certain departments or various agencies or even providing language sevices where there is significant demand does not clearly define the rights of French-speaking people. Either the province is bilingual or not, where both languages enjoy the same status. lt was interesting to learn through the media that Ste.

Rose was chosen as a designated community and, with this designation, $400,000 in federal funds would be made available to participating communities in order to extend French services. lt is hoped that these communities taking advantage of this program will not transl ate by-laws, which in many cases should be brought up-to-date or Minutes or correspondence, etc., just for the sake of obtaining a grant. Commun ities participating should be willing to contribute also towards these costs.

This would, in effect , place an onus on the municipality to make it more directly responsible to its ratepayers as to how far they wish it to participate. Ste. Rose at one time had bilingual signs. How ever, by-laws and Minutes were always transcribed in English. Our secretary-treasurers were always bilingual, and qu ite able to assist in translation. In speaking with former mayors, presentations to council by individuals have never requested more French services within our commun ity.

If municipalitie s do participate, will the Provincial Government contribute also towards these costs, because up to now only federal funds are available? lt is my understanding that $690,000 has 443 been spent to date to translate 25 provincial laws, or an average of $27,600 per document. What if all 28 participating communities requested the translation of their by-laws? The federal funds would qui ckly be disbursed. Then there would also be the ongoing costs to these municip alities to continue any program put into effect .

One wonders why all municipalities are not given an opportunity by way of incentives to offer some French services, regardless of French population. This would promote bilingualism throughout the province, instead of attempting to segregate certain areas. We quite agree with some of the remarks that the government's proposals are creat ing tensions. This is especially felt in smaller communities where you have various ethnic groups. Funding for expansion of French in schools would do more for bilingualism, as it would slowly evolve from understanding.

Our children through this education process would then be in a position to benefit not only from the government programs, but because by knowing both official languages, Canada as a country will be richer. The Societe Frenco-Manitobaine and the Provincial Government should withdraw this agreement, and let the Supreme Court rule on the Bil odeau case. Then the Government of Manitoba, knowing what its legal responsi bilities will be from this court decision, could then through the legislative process gradually proceed to extend French language services as requir ed.

This would in the in terim diffuse the ani mosity and misunderstanding from a well-intentioned attempt by this government. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Maillard. Questions? Mr. Brown. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that we very much appreciate being in your community today. We are very impressed by the number of people that are in attendance, that have been in attendance and by the quality of briefs that we have received. We know that there is a genuine concern in the community, and we share that concern.

I want to thank you for a very comprehensive brief, and we have no questions on that. Thank you. MR. S. ASHTON: In your brief, you indicated that there had never been requests for more French services within your community. Would you say, however, that if there was an extension of such services under the voluntary program which forms part of the amendment, such demand for those services might expand? I recall, for example, an earlier brief when somebody said that if and when increased services are provided, they will certainly be used.

I am just wondering if you feel that the same situation will apply or that there will be more use of the services. MR. R. MAILLARD: I think, as far as talking from the various people in the community, if they had wanted services, we would never have denied them whether they would have been asked 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Friday, 16 September, 1983 There was never a question of whether grants or X number of dollars would make any difference. MR. S. ASHTON: The reason I'm asking though is because the impression might be taken from your brief that there isn't a demand for such services, but an earlier individual indicated from this area tha t he certainly would want to be able to use those services in French. MR. R. MAILLARD: If presen tations had been made to our council, then we would have been made aware of it. I am sure that if they were within reason, whether we would have had grants or not, we would have imple mented them. MR.

S. ASHTON: Another question I have is, in your brief you state that you feel the amendment should be withdr awn and the case should go to the Supr eme Court, if I understand you correctly. Is that because you oppose the French services portion, or you oppose entrenc hing or both? Which aspect of the amendments don't you agree with? MR. R. MAILLARD: I agree with the first part of

Section 23, where it states that Manitoba is a bilingual province. In the manner in which it is going to be implemented as far as, let's say,

Section 23.7, I agree with some of the statements on it, but I also disagree with some of the statements as far as, let's say, Su bsection (2) where it is going to be "significant demand" that's going to deter mine. I am in agreement with portions of the government's stand, portions of the Franco societe stand. I feel that in some cases, it's not going tar enough and in some cases it is going too far by entren ching it. As to

Section 23.7, we are leaving a lot of other matters which could also have been brought in. At the same time, by entre nching it and letting the courts decide what is a significant demand is too ambiguous. I think the people of Manitoba through the legislative process should be able to determine this. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, I should mention as a point of information that the Premier has indicated and has the Attorney-General, that specific part of it - the significant demand portion - will be defined in amendments which will be coming down later.

So if that could be defined to your satisfaction, would you say generally that you would support the other sections, or would you feel perhaps that they don't go far enough, or they go too far? MR. R. MAILLARD: No, because how can you define a percentage of population: 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent? How can you carve this in stone? I don't think it should be left to the courts to decide. I think the people of Manitoba should decide.

If you have, let's say, a community that feels that they would like to have it, regardless if there are only 1 percent or 2 percent, and there is opposition to it, it shouldn't be the court to decide it. MR. S. ASHTON: So it should be left up to the local areas. 444 MR. R. MAILLARD: I think it should be, the legislative process and the Government of Manitoba and the people that are elected. MR. G. LECUYER: In reference to the same point made in your brief, Mr.

Maillard, you state, the government ". . . should withdraw from this agreement and let the Supreme Court rule on the Bilodeau case." Now the Supreme Court already having ruled in 19 79 on the constitutionality of the act passed in 18 70, what would follow then is the translation of all past laws since 18 70 and all the statutes;

whereas this current agreement proposes to translate only some of these. I notice that you make a particular point of the cost of translating laws. Do you then not agree that it is better to negotiate an agreement which is relevant to 1983 rather than negotiate an agreement which was passed, or let the courts decide on the basis of an agreement of 18 90, which would force us to translate all past laws, whether they are still in effect or not and all the statutes? MR. R.

MAILLARD: Well, first of all, I'm not going to preclude any judgment that would be handed down by a court decision because I don't know exactly what would happen. I would disagree if the court would ask that we would have to translate a lot of antiqua ted laws or laws that would not be possibly applicable. However, we can't go both ways, I either have to agree with the Franco Societe's request, which I don't, because I think the entren chment is not the right way to go. I don't agree, also, with the government's position.

So, I can't amend what the Franco Societe is proposing, not on my behalf, but on their own behalf. So, it's either one or the other. MR. G. LECUYER: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The point that I was referring to is that in your brief you seemed to be stating quite strongly that you do not favour the over-expenditures in the area of translation of laws and statutes and by-laws; rather you'd prefer to see the money applied into areas where they are going to be of more use to the citizens who speak French.

Yet, you say that the matter should go to the Su preme Court, which would have no choice but to pronounce itself, as it did and already has in 1979 and as it has since on the Blaikie case in Quebec. Therefore, the likely result would mean the translation of all these antiquated laws and statutes which would represent many millions of dollars. Therefore, again, I come back, do you not see any sort of contradiction in those two statements? MR. R. MAILLARD: There is a contradiction from one point. If I could have done the negotiating with the province and ask that only 400 by-laws be changed, fine.

Now, from my understanding the past government has started translating some of the laws. MR. G. LECUYER: This is so. Some of the laws are still in effect and some of the laws which are currently being passed are being translated. But what would inevitably happen would be also the laws passed since 18 70 would have to be translated without that kind of an agreement, do you not agree?

Friday, 16 September, 1983 MR. R. MAILLARD: Yes, but I think if you go back to 18 90 to the decision that we made when we entered Confederation, that we are now placing a cost at that time compared to what I am saying, let's say, of the amount of the 25 provincial laws which have been translated to date. I was referring to the amount of money that it could cost the municip alities if they were asked to translate documents. What I'm saying is there has to be some reasoning behind the amount of monies that are going to be spent as far as the various municipal ities that are going to be participating in the program.

MR. G. LECUYER: I am not sure that you have not opened another area and I'm not sure if you're saying that the municipal ities will have to be translating by­ laws. If that is the case, perhaps you're not aware of the ... MR. R. MAILLARD: I know they are not included in the brief, but I was referring back to the $400,000 worth in grants tha t were being handed out to the municipal ities, and I would hope that the grants haven't been squandered. That's the point I was making in the brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions, Mr. Lecuyer? Mr. Bucklaschuk. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you to Mayor Maillard, I want to get back to the provision of municipal services in the French la nguage. As you kn ow, on Septemb er 6th, the Attorney-General did propose an amendment to our proposal that French Language Services, the provision of such, would not be mandatory on munici palities or school boards. But as you are aware in the initial proposal between the SFM, the Provincial and Federal Governments and Mr. Bilodeau and his lawyer, there was a provision that for approximately 30 municipalities, those that want to could provide services in the two languages.

Now, you have indicated th at there is potentially some abuse in that. Isn't that really a reflection on municipal officials, rather than on the agreement? MR. R. MAILLARD: Possibly. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: You have some figur es in your brief that it has cost the· Provincial Government some $690,000 to translate 25 provincial laws. Could you provide us with the source of your informatio n? MR. R. MAILLARD: lt was taken out of an

article publi cized in a maga zine. The

article was cal led "Reluctant Bilingualism" by Peter Carlyle-Gordge in Winnipeg. I don't know the name of the magazine, but I could provide provide you with the name of the magazine. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Now, does that particular

article specifically indicate that the $690,000 was used solely to translate provincial laws or is that part of the services th at have been pr ovided in addition to translation? 445 MR. R. MAILLARD: The

article reads: "that since 1979 the province has been developing a voluntary program of translating English-only statutes into Frenc h. So far, it has cost $690,000 and only 25 copies of French statutes have been requested." HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The reason I question that is that it's my understanding and has been indicated on a number of occasions by the Attorney-General that the cost of translating a page is roughly $10 0.00. Those figur es that you provide us simply don't add up to the information that's been provided us.

Just one final question, you have indicated in your second final paragraph that we should virtually withdraw from the agreement and let the Supreme Court rule on the Bil odeau case. If th is should happ en, the Supr eme Court, which as indicated by Mr. Lecuyer would in all likeli hood require that all 4,500 statutes and laws that we have at the present time be translated into French. MR. R. MAILLARD: You are pr ecluding a cour t judgment. I can't answer that. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well just on that, certainly provincial politicians don't act on their own.

They do so with legal counsel and there is, from legal counsel that the province has, a likeliho od that that might be the case. If the Supreme Court should make that ruling, would you, as a municipal official, be willing to share in the additional costs that particular decision would bring about on the province? MR. R. MAILLARD: Again, you're precluding what the outcome - I can't comment on something that hasn't happened. You will have to wait to see what the Supr eme Court does and ask me that question.

I think we should take the chance in court You are putting again a cost figure on something that I can't answer. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: it's clear that Mayor Maillard is willin g to take a chance. We, as a province, are leery of tak ing the chance, and we feel th at with thi s agreement that we are probably being much more cost­ conscious than taking the chance on the dice, or a gamble. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee? Mr. Scott MR. D. SCOTT: Mayor Maillard, I have just a couple short qu estions for you, if I could.

First you have some problems with significant demand, and you want significant demand spelled out a little more clearly. In your brief, you stated that you did not have a great demand for services here. We have had people here before us today from the general area. I can't say whether they come from the Village of Ste. Rose du Lac, but in wanting more services. I am wondering how do you as a municipality that at one time, I understand earli er, or it was maybe just the R.M. provided their Minut es and their debates in French. They have moved totally over to English now.

How do you as an RM. determine whether services

Friday, 16 September, 1983 are going to be given in both langua ges? What kind of determinant do you use here, or is it all services given in English now? MR. R. MAILLARD: No, our Secretary- Treasurer is bilingual at the moment. As far as the Minutes, they are in English. I don't recall since we have been in council having anyone - let alone asking to read the Minutes without them being in either langu age. MR. D. SCOTT: You say that there are not people demanding services in Ste. Rose du Lac.

Could the reason be that people are not demanding services is because they felt they didn't have any right to demand services, or that maybe they were afraid of being branded if they do come and demand services or ask for services being offered them in their native tongue? MR. R. MAILLARD: I couldn't answer that. That would have been up to the individuals, whether or not they felt that service was required, but council is there. it's a small community, and I'm sure that any feelings felt within the community would be quickly related back to the people on council. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from members of the committee? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Through you to Mayor Maillard, Mr. Maillard, members in this committee qu ite often tend to try and ask questions supposedly for clarification if they find that they are in disagreement with somebody's particular stand. Maybe I can fit into that same category too. I find that you have made a statement regarding the education that is remarkably similar to that, that we heard from Mr. Laycock who appeared just a couple of times ago. I would like to ask a question for clarification. Is Mr.

Laycock a member of your council? MR. R. MAILLARD: No, I thought for a while he had copied my brief. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from members of the committee? If not, I would ask for the committee's indul gence to ask a couple of questions from the Chair, or leave the Chair to have someone else take the Chair if I can ask a couple. Do I have committee's permission? (Agreed) I only had two basic points I wanted to inquir e about, Mayor Maillard. The second page of your brief makes reference to 25 provincial laws. Is it clear from the quotation from MacLeans, the

article by Peter Carlyle­ Gordge to which you referred, that is in reference to only 25 requests for copies of laws, rather than the cost of translating 25 laws which is what your brief says? MR. R. MAILLARD: I'm sorry. You're right. 446 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The second question relates to your concern about entrenc hment. You expressed a concern that we should be going by legislation, by gradual extension of services as was done by - I think it's a fair statement - the last three governments in the province; the Schr eyer Government, the Lyon Government and now the Pawley Government.

You're suggesting that, rather than entrenching these amendments to the Constitution, this should be done by a continuation of the process we have undergone so far. If that's a fair assessment of the thrust of your brief, I have a question that flows from that. Is that a fair assessment though? MR. R. MAILLARD: What I have in front of me are two articles put out. One says, "In 18 70, Manitoba entered Confederation as a bilingual province.

Its status in that regard was the same as Canada and Quebec." I have another brochure here that was put out by the government that, "Manitoba is not becoming bilingual." Are we or aren't we? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that it's appropria te for me to answer your questions. The difficulty I have is being sure in terms of your brief whether you are saying that you are opposed to entrenchment. I read you as being opposed to entrenc hment, but it doesn't come out that clearly, but in favour of the continued expansion of services from government. Is that what you're saying? MR. R.

MAILLARD: I am in favour of the continued expansion of services from government. I agree with

Section 23.7, that any member of the public has a right to communicate, as stated in 23.7. I disagree with it from the point that it precludes as to Section (2) that anybody outside of this area will have to have significant demand to be provided with French services. Either we are bilingual, or we aren't bilingual. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Any further questions for Mayor Mailla rd? Thank you, Mayor Maillard for your presentation here to the committee. Reeve Kurt Schmidt, R.M. of Glenella, is Reeve Schmidt here now? Mr. Marvin Prochyshyn, Ukrainian Folk Art Centre. Mr. Prochyshyn. Mr. Adelard Oui met.

Geannine Archambault, Ste. Rose Cultural Committee. Gil bert Rioux, Commis saines d'e coles franco­ manitobains. MR. G. RIOUX: Bonjours Messieurs. Ca me fait plaisir d'etre a Ste-Rose. Je viens au nom de !'Association des Commissaires de Langue franvaise du Manitoba. L' Association des commis saires d'e coles franco­ manitobaines regroupe tous les commissaires d'ecoles d'expression franvaise depuis 19 18.

C'est a I' occasion de la suppression de !'education franvaise dans les ecoles publiques en 1916 que les commissaires d'ecoles d'expr ession franvaise se sent regroupes sous une associati on. 11 est clair e que la raison de ce regroupement etait de s'assu rer, avec l'a ppui de !'Association d'education des Canadians franvais du Manitoba, que !'education franvaise soit maintenue dans les ecoles qui regroupaient les francoph ones. Malgre les interdits legaux, les commissaires d'ecoles francophones, depuis 65 ans, ont du constamment

Friday, 16 September, 1983 I utter, epier, surveille r, negocier, consulter et quoi encore afin d'ameliorer I' education fran<;; aise pour sa clientele. Combien d'a n nees de travai l, d'a charneme nt et d'energie ont ete depen sees par nos membres afin de faire valoir le bien fonde d'une education franc;:aise. Combien de reunions furent convoquees afin d'elaborer des strategies pour perme ttre a no s jeu nes francophones d'avoir une education franc;:aise.

Alors que nos collegues anglophones n'ont jamais eu a se battre pour ce droit fondamental a !'education dans sa langue. 11 n'est plus a point, ici, de vous brosser un tableau historique de !'ev olution et la non evolution de !'education franc;:aise dans cette province. Depuis le debut de ces audi ences, vous avez entendu des person nes plus competentes , l'h istoir e des francophones et l'histoire de !'education franc;:aise de cette province.

Combien de fois les commissaires d'ecoles franco­ manitobains ont dO conseiller les professeurs a agir meme d'une fac;:on illegale en donnant ordre de cacher les livres franc;:ais lorsque l'in specteur du ministere venait faire sa vi site.

Combien de fois les commissaires d'ecoles franco-manitobains se sont senti sous pression par leurs collegues anglophones a abandonner leur lutte et a fonctionner a l'interieur des desirs de la majorite. 11 s'agit pour vous, messieurs, mesdames, de vous imaginer comment il est difficile d'oeuvrer a l'interieur d'un conseil scolaire dont la majorite ne comprend pas ou ne veut pas comprendre les aspirations d'un groupe minoritaire qui desire s'affermir et qui croit toujours a ses droits fondamentaux d'etre reconnus comme la minorite officielle dans cette province.

Je suis convaincu que vous connaissez les luttes scolaires recentes qu'a connu le Manitoba franc;:ais face a la mise sur pied d'ecoles franc;:aises et cela malgre la loi 11 3 qui fait du franc;:ais et de l'anglais les langues d'enseignement au Manitoba. Je pense aux ecoles Tache, Noel Ritchot a St-Norbert, Precieux-Sang a Norwood et a la regionale franc;:aise a lle-des-Chenes.

Ces luttes sont un reflet des problemes qu 'envisagent les parents, les professeurs et meme les eleves a obtenir ce qu' ils veulent en matiere d'ecoles franc;:aises et c;:a, je le repete, en depit d'une loi qui fait du franc;:ais et de l'anglais, les langues d'enseignement dans les ecoles publiques du Manitoba. Pourquoi est-ce que les autorit es scolai res et gouvernementales ne semblent pas emboiter le pas devant la poussee des inscriptions scolaires dans les programmes d'immersion?

Vous realisez sans doute que les parents qui inscrivent leurs enfants dans ce programme desirent que ces derniers deviennent bilingues dans les deux langues officielles de ce pays. 11 est tout-a-fait logique de croire que ces futurs citoyens voudront utiliser les deux langues officielles. Est-ce qu'on veut limiter !'uti lisation d'une de ces langues a l'interieur des foyers francophones et a l'interieur des ecoles franc;:aises et d'immersion? Pourquoi ne pas envisager pour les futurs generations une province qui jouit de l'e nchii.ssement des deux langues officielles dans la constitution?

Pourquoi ne pas etendre les services en franc;:ais de fac;:on rationnelle tel que negocies au debut mai 1983? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rioux, could I ask you to follow through your brief at a slightly slower pace. Those of 447 us who are listening to the translation are noticing that the translator is having a little difficulty keeping up with your rapid pace. MR. G. RIOUX: Pardon me for my French. MR. CHAIRMAN: No problem. it's our problem, not your problem. MR. G.

RIOUX: Vous etes sans doute, en mesure de comprendre maintenant pourquoi notre association a demeur e et demeur era toujours sce ptique aux promesses et aux supposes garantis declares par les au torites. Notr e experienc e dem ontr e qu'il est indispensable que les droits des francophones soient ench asses dans la constitution canadienne. 11 est essential que les lois du pays protegent ces droits contre toutes autorit es qui ne partagent pas les memes objectifs et les memes aspirations.

Qu'il soit done bien compris et bien inscrit que notre association appuie !'entente negociee en mai 1983 entre la Societe franco-manitobaine, le gouvernement federal et le gouvernement manitobain. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Rioux. Any questions by members of the committee? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to Mr. Rioux, Mr. Rioux, have you been made aware of recent amendments that the province proposed on the 6th of September to that agreement that was negotiated in May? MR. G. RIOUX: Certa inement, Monsieur . MR. H.

GRAHAM: Are you in favour then of exempting municipalities and school boards from the proposal that is presently before us? MR. G. RIOUX: Je suis en faveur de l'enchii.ssement des droits a partir du mois de mai. Et au mois de mai, on ne parte pas de divisions scolaires et non de municip alites, alors je respecte les demandes qui ont ete faites a ce moment. MR. H. GRAHAM: Would it be fair then for me to assume that you are not in favour then of the exemption of school boards and muni cipali ties from tho se provisions? MR. G. RIOUX: Que nous sommes pas en faveur, vous demandez? MR. H.

GRAHAM: Of exempting school boards and muni cipalities from those provisions. MR. G. RIOUX: Votre gouvernement en 19 70, je crois, a permis l'enseignement du franc;:ais dans nos ecoles. Maintenant, ces droits sont acquis jusqu'a un certain point pour l'enseignement du franc;:ais. Quand ea vient le temps de gerer nos divisions scolaires. Cela est tres differents. Et par la demande des parents aussi . les parents ne sont pas satisfaits.

Friday, 16 September, 1983 MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know, since there have been amendments made to this, if your association has exp ressed any concern about the amendments that have been put forward that would exc lude school boards from having their rights entrenched, as the suggestion of the Attorney-General would have a change made in

Section 23.7. MR. G. RIOUX: Depuis le commencement, qui a eu des ententes, que I' entente a ete faite avec la Societe franco -manitobaine, le gouvernement federal et le gouvernement provincial . . . depuis le commencement, les commissions scolaires etaient excluses et aussi les municipalites etaient excluses. Alors, nous sommes d'accord de l'ench<l.ssement et de !'entente du mois de mai. Nous sommes pas d'accord avec les amendements proposes au mois de juin, mois de septembre. Nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec ces amendements. Alors, c'est tout ce que je peux vous repondre, Monsieur. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Graham. Anyone else on the committee have any questions for M. Rioux? Hearing none, I would like again to ask a question to follow up on the question asked by Mr. Graham, if I may have the indu lgence of the committee. M. Rioux, in terms of the question Mr. Graham has asked you, you replied, and I want to clarify this question with you, that you un derstood that the agreement between the Government of Canada, the Province of Ma nitoba, M. Bilo deau and the Societe Franco­ Manitobaine completely excluded school boards and municipalities.

Is that correct, the agreement of the 17 th of May? MR. G. RIOUX: C'est une affaire entendue. C'est sous­ entendu que ea excluait les commissions scolaires et les municipalites - sous-entendu. C'etait pas redige dedans le texte. MR . CHAIRMAN: Would you agree th at it was unde rstood by all four parties to the agreement that school boards and municipalities were excluded? MR. G. RIOUX: C'etait un point de concession, de negociation, de concession. MR. CHAIRMAN: Since that was agreed to, why would you, following up from Mr.

Graham's question, take exception and disagree with an amendment which is proposed to put that in the actual text so it is clearer for those who were not sure? MR. G. RIOUX: Parce que vous avez change le texte avec vos amendements au commencement du texte. MR. CHAIRMAN: Madame Savard. MS. C. SAVARD: Bien, la chose qui etait sous­ entendue, c'etait que c'etait un point de negociation - puis comme commissaire d'ecole, ayant ete a plusieurs comite de concertation dans l'annee derniere ou j'etais presidente des commissaires, c'etait tout le temps un 448 point qui avez ete ramene.

Puis !'explication qu'on a recue a tous points, c'etait que c'etait un point de negociation. Maintenant, moi je vois ea . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Madame Savard, could you pull the microphone more closely to you? The interpreter is having difficulty. Could you begin again. MS. C. SAVARD: Quand les negociations et que la concertation s'est faite avec les organismes franco­ manitobains avec la Societe franco-manitobaine, il y avait toujours le point . . . et les commissions scolaires . . .

Bien dans le texte qui avait ete negocie au mois de mai, c'est claire qu'il y avait des concessions et des points de negociation qui ont ete faits. C'etait une entente. Maintenant les muni cipalites, les districts scolaires, n'avaient pas ete mention nes soit dans le texte, hors du texte, meme sous le sous-entendu, on s'avait fait dire qu' ils etaient pas inclus.

Moi je vois la difference maintenant que depuis l'amendement du 6 septembre ou il y a deux ou trois choses . . . la premier e, c'est du nu mero 1 qui dit qu e c'est pas claire qu'on dit seulement que la province sera bilingue et aussi le numero 7 ou ea dit . . . remove the words pursuant to ... et puis etablir les choses ... c'est des choses qui ont changes. Moi, je vois ea un petit peu different maintenant. Les choses ont change ou il y a pas seulement que les mots exluant les divisions scolaires et les municipalites.

Les mots ont aussi change dans d'autres textes ... qui change un petit peu I' idee ou !' ideal qui etait !'en tente. Et pour nous, une association, de se prononcer qu'on est pas d'accord avec les amendements et puis les efricher de morceaux en morceaux, c'est vraiment pas juste parce que je pense qui taut regarder une entente au complet, et puis comme membre de la communaute francophone, il taut regarder les amendements comme une chose complete. Moi, de ma part, je trouve vraiment pas juste qu'on commence a dire ... et bien, etes vous d'accord avec cette partie-la ou cette autre partie-la.

On est pas ici pour negocier une entente. On dit simplement qu'on etait d'accord de !'entente du mois de mai et puis, on se tient a ea. Quand ea viendra a renegocier et puis on regardera au langage, on pourra en reparler . MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you very much. Further questions? Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUVER: Merci, Monsieur le President. Je ne sais pas si vous avez repondu a la satisfaction du President. J'allais juste preciser si c'etait pas encore claire, parce que je crois avoir compris clairement ce que vous avez dit. A mon sens, vous pourrez vous mettre d'accord avec ce que je dit ou vous demeurez en desaccord.

Si j'ai bien compris, vous dites nous, ce avec quoi on etait d'accord, c'etait avec !'entente telle qu'elle etait convenue au mois de mai. Ce n'est pas le fait d'y avoir ajoute uniq uement !'exclusion des commissions scolaires et des municip alites qui vous met en desaccord avec l'amendement du 6 septembre mais c'est I' ensemble des sous-amendements apportes a cette date-la qui vous met en desaccord. C'e st ea? MS. C. SAVARD: C'est vraiment pas juste de prendre ... moi, je trouve que c'est une entente, une audie nce

Friday, 16 September, 1983 publique de meme ... juste prendre un petit mot ici et la, c'est vraiment, pour notre association, c'est vraiment pas juste qu'on fasse des commentair es sur ce point-la. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee? Hearing none, Mr. Rioux, Madame Savard, merci. Mr. Ray Murray. Mr. Murray? Mr. G. Wachsmann. MR. G. WACHSMANN: Mr. Cha irma n , comm ittee members, ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to address this comm ittee meeting as a concerned taxpayer.

The issue of French language guar antees has only come about because of some very inadequate responsiveness by a number of levels of government to us, the average Joe citizens. I would like to begin at the earliest level of teaching. At school, I was taught and today's youth are still being taught that this province and this total country is a democracy, meaning ruled by the people. The question then arises, which people? lt has been and is now the accepted tradition that the majority of the people make the decisions.

At an election, any election, the victory is acceded to the person or the party receiving the most or the majority of the votes cast. Due to the apathy or to the diversity of candidates, the candidate may not always represent the total majority of all people, but he does in almost every instance