Manitoba Committee Hansard — Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 37 (32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-pe37

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on PRIVILEGES and ELECTIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. A. Anstett Constituency of Springfield VOL. XXXI No. 37 - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Prownce ot Manitoba

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

Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOV NATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Ylc SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN , Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thom pson La Vdrendrye 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 Vir den Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-R ussell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC ND P IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP ND P NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Monday, 26 September, 1983 TIME - 2:00 p.m. LOCATION - Arborg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Andy Anstett (Springfield) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Bucklaschuk and, Uruski; Hon. Mrs. Smith Messrs. Anstett, Brown, Enns, Gr aham, Kovnats, Malinowski, Ms. Phillips, Mr. Scott WITNESSES: Mayor Ken Reid, Village of Arborg Ms. Lesley Osland, Private citizen Mr. Ray Sigurdson, on behalf of the R.M. of Gimli and as a Private Citizen Mr . T. Hoffman, presented a brief on behalf of Mr .

Karl Lange, Private citizen Mr . Mike Taczynski, Private Citizen Mr . Ro bert Dubo is, Societe franco manitobaine MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order please. Gentlemen, the Clerk advises she has received the res ig nation of Ho nourable Ms. Dolin and I understand Ms. Phillips is to be the replacement therefore. Is that agreed? (Agreed) Thank you. Gentlemen, the Clerk has also been advised that two individuals, Lesley Osland and Ray Sigurdson, Nos. 24 and 25 on our list, would like to be heard this afternoon. I have some difficulty in accommodating a request without the committee's deliberation of that.

We do have a long list, Mayor Reid who was absent at the beginning this morning is now here, the Mayor of Arborg. I would ask the committee's pleasure as to how we should proceed to accommodate requests for special consideration? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, we were informed by Mr . Bucklaschuk this morning that Ms. Osland could not be here this afternoon so I would suggest that we proceed accordi ng to the list. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? I understand, ladies and gentlemen, that Mayor Reid arrived shortly after we started this morning. Mr. Scott. 689 MR. D. SCOTT: I understand that Ms.

Osland has a sickness in the family and she wanted to get away and get back to her child as soon as she possibly could, so I think it would be reasonable of the committee, and I think the public could certainly accept if someone who has a child that is ill to be able to get back to that child as fast as possible.

So, I would suggest that we continue and go with the people that had indicated to be heard as soon as possible this morning and, because of lengthy proceedi ngs this morning, we weren't able to deal with, at least we should be able to deal with them so they can leave right as soon as possible this afternoon. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it suggested that we hear Lesley Osland then? What is your will and pleasure with regard to hearing Mr. Sigurdson? Would you also like to provide advancing on the list to Mr. Sigurdson, Mr. Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I think your suggestion earlier about possibly we could proceed with Mayor Reid who inadvertently missed this morning, and go with Ms. Osland and Mr. Sigurdson, and then go back to the list if that would be agreeable and let's continue on if they are here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? (Agreed) Mayor Reid, please. Mayor Reid, could you wait one moment please until the Clerk has distributed the copies? Please proceed. MR. K. REID: First of all, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to apologize for not being here at 10 o'clock this morning, but I wasn't aware that I was going to be the first one on the program and that it would start at 10 o'clock this morning. My name is Ken Reid, I'm the Mayor of Arborg, and I would like to start with my presentation. With the presentation of this brief, I wish to state that I have been a resident of Arbor g for app roximately 55 years with 26 of those years in public office. The views I express, I believe, are those of the majority in Arborg. I would like to start with a personal story. Our family moved here when I was eight.

Arborg then had a Ukr ainian Hall and an Icelandic Hall, and all functions were ethnic. Those starting school spoke Icelandic or Ukr ainian. There was constant feuding; in sports, it was fish eaters versus garlic eaters, gulla versus gooli. My brother and I often played on opposite sides to make the teams even. By the time we had completed school, we were intermarry ing, racial prejudice was disappeari ng. In its place was love, respect and tolerance. All could speak a common language besides their own. The Second World War saw all ethnic groups serving their country.

After the war, the old halls were torn down and this fine community centre we are in today was built. The town is a gr owing service centre with a prosperous farming area, and in these tough economic

Monday, 26 September, 1983 times we can claim, no one at present on town welfare; few can make that statement. The census figures show 10 of French ancestry in a population of 1,000. lt is obvious that French services are not needed here. The French language is protected in the Constitution, and we do not oppose the use of French where it is needed. However, we feel it should not be entrenched in Manitoba's Constitution and left to the courts to interpret. To clarify this, let me explain. In 1870, with only a few thousand people in Manitoba, the languages may have been fairly even.

In 19 83, figur es show approximately 6 percent of Manitobans are of French extraction. In another generation, it could be only 1 percent as a result of emigr ation and assimilation. Our family's Scottish roots go back 1,000 years. Now all the family have married into other ethnic groups, and a new Canadian race is being form ed. The Anglophone and the Francophone, as we have known them, will gradually disappear. If the French language is forced into all levels of government, it will give the taxpayers an incr eased financial burden. The costs could be doubled while very few would benefit.

In the job market, a minority would gain advantage over the majori ty. We have no objection to the use of the French language where it is required, but there must be one common language of commun ication; in Manitoba it should be English. The Bilodeau case is a ploy. The government has over-reacted. Whil e I believe Premier Pawley's Government has good intentions, I strongly feel that this case should have gone to the Supreme Court. We should not be rushing to make a deal on the assumption that the court would have ruled against the province. The government and the people could have decided Manitoba's future.

These hearings are a farce. The deal has been made and I am sure we could comply with the 1970 agreement at a cost of far less than establishing a bilingual service for the next 10 0 years to a diminishing minority. French could be established where needed, but let the future decide if we need entrenchment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mayor Reid. Questions for Mayor Reid from members of the committee. Mr. Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you , Your Worship.

I appreciate the brief that you have presented here on behalf of the Village of Arborg and pointing out your rich involvement in our comm ittee and heritage in Arborg. I wanted to ascertain from you; on the one hand, we hear and in your brief you say tllat we should allow the Bilodeau case to go to court; and yet, on the other ha nd, you've said that we sh ould, as elected representatives, settle this whole issue. If we allow, as you state, the Bilodeau case should go to court, what is your belief would happen? MR. K. REID: Well, I don't feel that the Supreme Court is foolish.

I cannot see them saying that all the laws of Manitoba are null and void. I would think that the Supreme Court, if they decided that we should have everything bilingual, would give a time to establish that 690 and I would think by allowing this time it would allow the government and the people to decide on the future of the two languages. HON. B.

URUSKI: Having been made aware - and I'm sure you have through the media and the like - of the proposed agreement that was agreed to between the Manitoba Government, the Federal Government and the Franco -Manitoban Society about the extent of how far we would go to translating our statutes, the numbers of which, and the length of time to translate them, do you feel that this agreement, in terms of the specific numbers of it and the length of time, would be greater than what the courts might interpret in the Bilodeau case? MR. K.

REID: No, I don't think it would be more and I state in my brief that I think Premier Pawley and the NDP Government- and most of them I know personally - are trying their best to find the best possible deal for Manitoba. The only thing that I am concerned about here is that a deal was struck with the Franco-Manitoban Society and the Federal Government without going to the people first; this is my concern. I would like further to say, too, that in this town there are 10 people that can trace their ancestry back to French. Now even those 10 people, I don't think, are French in the full sense of the word.

But I don't think that it would affect, regardless of what legislation is brought in, this community very much. HON. B. URUSKI: I agree. Mr. Chairman, and Your Worship, you are, no doubt, aware that municipalities and school divisions wou ld be exempted by the agreement. I concur with your statements about the allowing of the matter to proceed and possibly not involving the public in a better forum, but be that as it may ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. HON. B. URUSKI: I'm sorry. In your brief, you indicated that the hearings are a farce. The hearings have not MR. K.

REID: I feel that they are coming after the fact, instead of before. I state in my brief that I think the government perhaps over-reacted by moving too quickly on this. I guess, maybe I could be considered to be a politician, too, we sometimes react quicker than we should maybe from different pressures. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uruski. Further questions? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if you could just comment on this fact. I gather from reading your brief that you believe that Manitobans have been living in some harmony to this point in time; is that your view? MR. K. REID: Yes.

Having moved into a community like Arborg which had mainly two ethnic groups, Icelandic and Ukrainian, in which every kid started school speaking his own language, I think we have come a long way in being able to communicate with each other.

Monday, 26 September, 1983 If you go back to our parents they married in their own ethnic group; when it came to our group, part of them married outside their ethnic group. If you come to the present generation, they're not listening to nobody, they're marrying who they please. You are going to find that the ethnic mix is becoming more pronounced than ever. I think that the French are going to have an extremely tough time to retain their language because of it. I am thinking of an

article to the paper, in one of the French newspapers here in Manitoba, in which this woman states that she brought her family up with French in the home. They went to school and learned their French, but now the trouble is arising, the two girls are going with two Ukrainian boys from across the river, and guess what language is taking over? This is the concern with the French. lt's happening to all ethnic groups, and I know that there is a concern among the ethnic groups in this community that they are gradually losing their ... but I don't think it's anything we can stop.

Therefore, because we can't stop it, I think that we should not be entrenching it, because we don't know what - well I feel sure that in the next generation or two that we're going to have a distinctive Manitoba com mun ity. I think that the Anglophone and the Francophone, as we knew them, are disappear ing. MR. R. DOERN: Mr . Mayor, since the legislation has been introduced, have you noticed any problems in terms of speech or thought? Would you say, for example, that the introduction of the legislation has caused some hard feelings in the community? MR. K.

REID: I think that everybody in this community is aware of this, and I have yet to find anybody who really is supporting bringing additional French into the commun ity, but that's understandable because there just is no French community here. I think it has stirred up, to a certain extent, but it will not really affect the people in this community because we are almost 100 percent outside of it. If we had half the population French, I would imagine then the war would be on. MR. R. DOERN: You say that the hearings are a farce.

But, would it not be the case that they would be a farce if the government refused to listen, that it's by the actions of the government that we can tell whether the hearings have been worthwhile or not? MR. K. REID: Well, the reason I say it's a farce, I don't think that these hearings are going to change anything. I think the deal has already been made and I don't think that these hearings are going to - other th�n an exercise of exerting our voice - have very much change in what's going to happen. MR. R.

DOERN: However, I think you would agree, even if that is the case, you still have the opportunity of giving your views and making a negative statement about the hearings. That, in itself, must be worthwhile? MR. K. REID: Well, I appreciate the fact of being able to be here and express my views. I think I am expressing the views of the average person in this community that 691 we sh ouldn't be entrenc hing because we are intermarrying and we are changing. MR. R. DOERN: Are you holding a public referendum or plebiscite on this question? MR. K. REID: No, not unless there is pressure from the public to do so.

Council has not decided to hold a referendum and we would not hold a referendum unless there was public pressure to do so. MR. R. DOERN: My final question, Mr . Mayor, is this. Would you contend that a constitutional amendment, which is a pretty significant step, it's not an ordinary piece of legislation, this is a significant historical move on the part of the Provi ncial Go vernment that a constitutional amendment should only proceed if, and only if, there is widespread public support or, on the other hand, should not proceed if there is widespread public opposition? MR. K.

REID: Well, I think that I would agree that we should have the feeling of the public before we start to make too many changes. This has been my criticism that we're having the hearings after, instead of before. I would say that I know most of the people in the government and I know that they are sincere; I don't agree that we should be having hearings after a deal has been made. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mayor Reid from members of the committee? Mr . Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr .

Reid, . . . and I don't take the statement lightly when you say to us assembled members of the Legislature, and call our proceedings a farce.

I'm not saying that in a challenging way, I tend to agree with you, but I would like to solicit from you, if I could, to use as an example, for instance, in the imp ortant area of repatriating and redrawing our Canadian Constitution that we have just gone through in this country, a whole host, two-and-a-half years of Premiers' conferences preceded that event; special interest groups had an opportunity to make their views known, such as, women's organ izations, Native organizations, etc., all made presentations to the Government of the Day in Ottawa having to do with the fundamental creation of our Constitution.

Then, and only then, with the concurrent and the agreement of the Conservative leader, the New Democratic Party Leader - Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Clark at that time - did the Government of the Day, the Federal Government, present the resolution pertaining to our Constitution onto the floor of the House of Commons.

I take it that when you call this meeting a farce you are objecting to the fact, or at least you feel, that the deal has been struck in secret with one group of Manitoba's society, the Society of Franco-Manitobans and that you are not getting the impression from the government that they are prepared to change that deal in a significant way; is that why you call this meeting a farce? MR. K. REID: I feel that the government made a mistake in not asking the opinion of the people before entering

Monday, 26 September, 1983 into an agreement. Now, the other argument can be made that we elect people to make decisions, but I kind of feel that this being a constitutional change that there should have been some sort of commun ication with the people to see what we had. At the same time, I'm not going to condemn the government for trying, but I don't think it's the right way. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Reid. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Ms. Smith. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, through you to Your Wor ship. Are you aware of what the options were in front of the government, in terms of the Bilodeau case? MR.

K. REID: I may not have been as aware as the government, but I would think that the assumption is made that if they went to the Supreme Court that our laws in Manitoba would be null and viod. Now if you look back to

Section 23 of the 1870 Act and reading it, it could be in both languages. lt does not say that it has to be, and because of the law passed in 1890, I would think that the Supreme Court would give a lot of consideration before they would go to work and condemn the government or the Province of Manitoba for not having it in both languages. HON. M. SMITH: Are you aware that there were two other Supr eme Court decisions which influenced the possibility of an outcome?

One the decision in 1979 on the Forest case that led to the previous administration recognizing English and French as official languages for the Legislature and the courts, that was put in place in 1980 in Manitoba; there was also a Supreme Court decision on a minority rights case in Quebec where the Supreme Court, in sup port of minority rights, required the Provincial Government of Quebec to pay back something like $500 million in past wages to teachers and other groups because the law had been passed in one language only, and that the principle of minority rights, therefore, is a very strong concern to the Supreme Court, therefore, it had some influence on one of the outcomes, no question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ord er, order please. We're going on with a very long

preamble and providing a lot of information which is not contained in the brief. As we discussed this morning, questions should be for clarification only of material in the brief. I thought there was a question flowing in there somewhere, so maybe you could make it short and snappy? HON. M. SMITH: My apologies, Mr. Chairman.

I guess what I'm trying to draw out is what leads you to think that the choice of letting the case go to the Supreme Court was the wisest move when there were some probabilities of one decision of course that might be, the other one of course being in favour of Bilodeau, if the case was found in favour of Mr . Bilodeau we may have been required to put much more extensive services in place in Manitoba. MR. K. REID: Well I app reciate the fact that the government was trying to save money by not translating 692 all these statutes.

I don't think there's anybody here that has any objections to the French language being used in the Legislature and in the courts. I think where the concern is, that it go beyond those levels and to a considerable expense - if you're going to extend it to all boards, commissions. Of course, they say they're not going to take it to the municipal level, but what's to stop another Bilodeau or another Forest to take the case and challenge the municipal people?

You know, we've had two cases now and I don't think there's anything to stop somebody else, and I state in my brief that I think that the Bilodeau case was a ploy and I don't think he did this on his own exactly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr . Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to Mayor Reid. Mayor Reid, in answer to questions from Mrs. Smith, you indicated that you may or may not have been aware of the position the Provincial Government was placed in in the Bilodeau case.

Can I ask you, if you had any communication between your Municipal Government and the Provincial Government, prior to these hearings, at which time the province made you aware of any G1 those problems that they were facing? MR. K. REID: Well I'm not really aware of any commun ication, other than what we get through the dif ferent media. I don't think there was any commun ication. If it did come, it would come to the secretary-treasurer and I don't think we discussed any communication along those lines. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr .

Mayor, did the province, at any time in the last six months, seek the advice of your municipal council on an issue, such as, a constitutional change that is very significant to all of us? MR. K. REID: I would say the communication was that we had the federal member of Parliament come down to our meeting and we had quite a lengthy discussion on many topics there, one of them was we expressed our views on the bilingual problem. But I don't think that we had any communication with the government other than the usual releases. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I can understand some of the concerns of the municipality or the village. I believe it is something that has happened at numerous of these hearings, where various municipal corporations have lamented the fact that the province has not consulted with them at any time on this thing. I would like to ask the mayor if he feels that it should be important for the Provincial Government to consult and communicate with the local level of government which is closest to the people, before they make any significant moves, such as, a constitutional amendment? MR. K.

REID: Well I've tried to express it in my pres entation that I felt with the changing of our Constitution that there should be a lot of consultation with the people in the province. MR. H. GRAHAM: No further questions, Mr . Chairman.

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bucklaschuk. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to Mayor Reid. Not on your brief, but in response to the answer you gave to Mr. Graham. I'm wondering if you would check with your secretary-treasurer to see whether there was any communication from the Premier and the Attorney-General. I recall at the Brandon hearings that such evidence was produced and I presume your secretary-treasurer hasn't made you aware of that correspondence. MR. K. REID: Yes, there ma y have been correspondence come through, I don't want to say that there hasn't been.

At each meeting we probably have 15, 20 different pieces of corres pondenc e and sometimes, you know, I don't particularly remember any particular one. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members? Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you. Mayor Reid, on top of Page 2 you state, on behalf of the Village of Arborg, that the French language is protected in the Constitution and we do not oppose the use of French where it is needed. I guess I'd like a little explanation of who determines where it is needed?

You say where it's needed - is that you determining it or is it the French people who have the right to receive those services determining it? MR. K. REID: I would think if there is enough sufficient population, or if there's people that want to use the French language, to use it. Now I understand that down in the southern part of Manitoba there are communities in which the French is used quite a bit and, if it's needed there, I have no quarrel with it.

I have no qua rrel with anybody whether they speak Icelandic, Ukrainian, or German or whatnot, but I feel strongly that there has to be one lang uage of commun ication within the province and I think if we're going to try and make two languages, and half the people understand one, and half the other, I don't think that would work out. MR. D.

SCOTT: What this is dealing with, sir, is the right of someone whose language is French to deal with the government in French, not dealing between themselves and other individuals in society. it's an obligation or right of an individual to receive a service from their government in their mother tongue, which is pro.tected under the Constitution. I take it from what you're saying, where it is needed, then you are accepting a criterion of significant demand, that where there is sufficient demand for those services that those services should be provided to those individuals who request it? MR. K.

REID: To probably answer your question, one of the civil ser-rants who is hired as bilingual - I believe in your government - was asked how many times did he use the bilingual services in the pa.st year, and he said maybe once or twice. I don't think there's any quarrel that the services of the government should not be available, but I don't think it's necessary to go to 693 work and have bilingual services if they're not going to be used.

There would be no use you putting bilingual services into this community where you couldn't find five people to speak it, but in the government in the main departments - I would think that they would have it there - I don't know what else I can say on that. MR. D. SCOTT: So then you are saying that in offices of the government, where there is significant demand, that services should be provided in French to those people? MR. K. REID: If there is need to have interpretive services in these departments, I would think that we'd have to accept that and I think that they're entitled to it.

But I don't think we should just insist that there be bilingual service throughout the whole province when it's not needed, like for instance in this community or in our offices here. MR. D. SCOTT: Yes, that's understood, sir, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Seeing none, Mayor Reid, thank you for making your presentation and thanks to your council for prov iding for you to make that brief. Thank you very much. Lesley Osland, please. MS. L. OSLAND: First of all, thank you for putting me in here. Mr .

Chairman, members of the committee, the brief I am presenting before the Standing Committee is related to the qu estion of Fr ench lang uage in Manitoba school systems as a whole. Where are the priorities? In 18 70 Manitoba entered Confederation as a bilingual province and we still, as Man itobans, can not educate our childr en in two languages in the rural municipalities. Premier Howard Pawley has assured us that the municipalities and school boards will not be affected by entrenchment of French Language Services in the Manitoba Constitution.

He has commented that school boards and municipalities will only be asked to implement French Language Services on a voluntary basis. When, in fact, I believe this - the school is where the French issue should be enforced, if anywhere at all. I don't believe that our government should have the right to dictate what language an individual should or should not speak, just as I don't think it's right they should be able to legislate the seat belt, helmet regulations, but however they have, despite the hundreds protesting it.

The bottom line is that once any one issue is passed through the Legislature, we, the citizens, have to abide, right? So what my point is, if this is the case, and it is only obvious that it is, why don't we, the concerned adults, parents, at least have our children prepared for it?

I feel that once a student gradua tes into Grade 10 and has a choice, most drop out of their French class for the simple reason that they feel it is more important to exert their attention to the subjects they're falling back in and the reason they make French the inferior subject is because it's drilled into our heads that this is not required or necessary for any job which they may apply for. For example, in the event a competition is posted in an unemployment office, for a government job or

Monday, 26 September, 1983 other, it is illegal discrimination to stipulate French English required, but you have noticed that it can be stated bilingual prefer red. So tell me what does this indicate? lt says, between the lines, that if two people apply and both have exactly the same qualifications in every aspect, with the exception that one is bilingual and the other is not, then it is obvious whom would be the probable candidate. Instead of fearing the French Language Services, why don't we work with it and use it to our advantage?

Right now, as it stands, the majority of Canadian English schools have their curriculum outlined and the French class is taught for the duration required, just as other subjects are by individual schools, and that is as far as it goes. Is it enough? I'm not here to put down the school systems, but can't you see that it is time something more is offered to the communities, as far as the French services are concerned? Why not have an alternative for the parent to choose from when their child is enrolled in grade school? Do you think that it is vital? I do.

I feel it is important to give your children an opportunity to learn two languages right from the beginnin:J of their education, as that seems to be necessary for their future and when could be a better time than when they are going through their education and eager to learn? I'm not French. I cannot speak it and I only wished now in my life that I could. I really think that most parents would like to give their child the chance at least. They may thank us for it, it certainly can't hurt.

The problem today is most rural communities do not have a French Immersion school, so even if you wanted to put your son or daughter through a French Immersion school, you couldn't. Can the government not give us this choice? Do you really feel that there isn't a need for French Immersion schools in the rural commu nities, at least in the central communities as a start? I mentioned I'm not here to put down the school systems, as a matter of fact, I feel my proposal will strengthen the schools in the rural areas.

I realize that in smaller communities, like villages, it would be quite an expenditure to construct a new school for immersion, and to convert the one and only in each community would start quite a conflict, and once again, this is not giving the people freedom of choice. So why not, as a start, begin the program in the larger, ru ral municipalities? For example, Selkirk. There are enough schools in Selkirk that surely ju st one could be converted to a French Immersion , and in Gimli it has a large enough population that I think it could offer a French Immersion school.

What are our chances if we were to apply, as we don't have a substantial number of Francophones in our commu nities? I might add that I am confident I am speaking for the majority of the parents and children in the rural towns. On behalf of my three sons, I'd like to thank you for your attention and consideration of this brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from Ms. Osland from members of the committee? Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Ms. Osland, I appreciate you coming out, especially with a child who has measles and I understand you're keen to get back to him.

I also 694 appreciate the fact that, as a young parent, coming out to address concerns in the education system and regarding the French Language Services in that system, and although our heari ngs today are not dealing specifically with that, if I could, as it pertains to your brief, ask you if you feel that the services would be a better match if French language training was offered in the schools as a regular subject starting right in at kindergarten throughout the school system? MS. L. OSLAND: You're asking me if I think that's where it should start? MR. D. SCOTT: Yes. MS. L OSLAND: Yes. MR. D.

SCOTT: So that's not necessarily going with an immersion program , but where at least a child gets half an hour of instruction a day, starting at a young age? MS. L. OSLAND: At least that. I think, especially in the larger communities, I'm sure that they would have more than 10 percent, if that is the requirement for each community to have a French Immersion school. I can't see why parents wouldn't want to put their children through it. MR. D. SCOTT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Ms. Osland from members? Mr. Doern. MR. R.

DOERN: I want to ask you a very general question and ask you why you have selected French in opposition to, say, German or Spanish as one, or Ukrainian, or as one person said recently, Japanese is the language of the future? MS. L OSLAND: In Manitoba, any job that I've applied for or any one job I've seen, they certainly don't have a requirement to speak Ukrainian or any other. The only other subject that I've seen that they want is French. MR. R.

DOERN: You seem to sugge st in your presentation, or you seem to argue that jobs should be created or more jobs should be created that are bilingual to encourage the study of French. Did you say that? MS. L. OSLAND: I wouldn't say that they should be created, but they're going to be. Right now I think it's 3 percent in the Civil Service that require French and if that's the way it is right now, if French goes any further, it's sure going to be a lot more than 3 percent, and our kids aren't going to be ready for it. I mean they don't say it's 3 percent for Ukrainian right now in Manitoba or for German. MR. R.

DOERN: And you said you had three children in school? MS. L OSLAND: I have one in school and one that'll be starting school next year and the one later.

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. R. DOERN: If you were perfectly fluent in French, or your sons were perfectly fluent in French when they grew up, where would they speak it and to whom would they speak? MS. L. OSLAND: They would speak it in their jobs that require French conversations and at home probably and English. MR. R. DOERN: Are you from the greater Arborg area? MS. L OSLAND: No I'm from Gimli-Selkirk area. MR. R. DOERN: I see. Do you think there's a need to speak French or be bilingual in those communities - a practical need? MS. L.

OSLAND: If they're not in the community it doesn't necessarily mean - if they go to school there, that doesn't mean that's going to be where they stay. Those kids may end up in the city and we haven't prepared them. If there's no French offered at all - the only French that's offered is 40- minute classes and I know my 10-year-old boy can hardly speak French. it's mostly their art class to him and that's nothing against the teacher, but that's the way it is, it just isn't made a priority in the school. MR. R.

DOERN: Are you assuming that there's a need or a value in speaking French if you live in the City of Winnipeg? MS. L. OSLAND: I assume that, in jobs. MR. R. DOERN: Do you have friends in Winnipeg who are bilingual? MS. L. OSLAND: I hardly have any friends in Winnipeg. MR. R. DOERN: We can arrange that. The final question, Mr . Chairman, is: if you, for example, were bilingual, my concern is this, that unless you live in an area where there is a practical demonstrated need to speak French, how will you retain your ability to speak French? For instance, many of us are gradua tes of the school system.

I have seven years of French. I don't find too many instances in which that need or that skill or that educational background is called upon. So I simply say to you that, in general, in your own commu nity or in most places in Manitoba, if you were perfectly bilingual, don't you think you would tend to lose that skill rather than continue it or build it? MS. L OSLAND: I don't think that you would if you went through 12 years of education with French Immersion.

I know that I went to Grade 12 and I took French up until Grade 10 and I think I know maybe five words, but a person that would take it fluently like that, even two years, a child that's 10 to 12 years old, takes French, I can't see that they would lose it all that much. If they finally need it in their jobs, they can always go to the French classes at night. MR. R. DOERN: Have you ever met people who were perfectly bilingual in various languages as children, and then over the years have lost that ability to communicate? MS. L. OSLAND: No.

I know one that is bilingual and he's got four languages, one's Russian, and they just stay with him and he even says that once you know a second language, it's almost easier to learn any other languages. This is from someone that's done it, I couldn't say that that's how it is. MR. R. DOERN: Have you ever studied any languages yourself at a school or other? MS. L. OSLAND: No, I tried to take Russian, but I gave up. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Ms. Osland? Mr . Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, two or three questions to Ms. Osland. Ms.

Osland, you feel it's very important that the use of French and the learning of French should be done in the school. Is that right? MS. L. OSLAND: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: Do you think that we can accomplish bilingualism by legislation? MS. L. OSLAND: By legislation - in the school system you mean? 695 MR. H. GRAHAM: No, just by passing a bill that says that Manitoba shall be officially bilingual. Would that accomplish bilingualism? MS. L. OSLAND: I don't think it would entirely. I don't even think seat belts will, even though it's $25 every seat belt that isn't done up. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Do you think it would help in making Ma nitoba bilingua l - ju st the passage of the constitutional amendment? MS. L. OSLAND: lt will probably make more jobs needing French, so it would probably make more people learning it, so in the long run it might help, but I don't imagine immediately it's going to make much of a change. MR. H. GRAHAM: Do you think in making more jobs available for those who are bilingual in French and English, would it make fewer jobs available for those that are fluent only in one language? MS. L OSLAND: No, I don't. MR. H.

GRAHAM: So you would think it would just make more jobs then in the government service? MS. L. OSLAND: No. I just think that a lot of other jobs will be changed to French and English required.

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. H. GRAHAM: And in the changing of those requirements, would that mean that a person that was unilingual then lose their job? MS. L. OSLAND: No. I don't know how to answer that. I don't think it would. MR. H. GRAHAM: I'm just trying to find out how you would envisage this happening. If you figure there would be mor e jobs available to those that were bilingual, would you advocate then a growth in the Civil Service to accommodate them? MS. L. OSLAND: I hope so, I don't really know. You can 't judge wha t's going to happ en wh en the government passes something. MR. H. GRAHAM: Ms.

Osland, I tend to agree with you on that last statement, so I won't ask any further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Osland, as a parent, I'm also very interested in the comments that you had to make about the best ways that school divisions could be looking at teaching both languages in the school, however, that's not something that's dealt with in this particular amendment, to turn everyone in the province into bilingual people, in terms of being able to fluently speak both official languages.

Although, I think you raise a point where, in The Public School Act, there is a provision to offer the French language in elementary schools or French Immersion that perhaps, even though there's not many French speaking people in your community, you still have the vehicle, as a citizen of that school division, to organize with other parents to have those services provided. What we're talking about here is services from the Provincial Government where required by individuals.

My question is, in terms of your brief and the future in terms of jobs, it's been suggested that out of the 16 ,000 Civil Service jobs in Manitoba, provincial civil servants, where the services in this amendment will have to be provided by, that it will probably entail about 400 positions. 1 think you were commenting that it would be better if all children were prepared to fill those positions by having both languages.

Do you think, from the facts that have been given, that I just repeated throughout this debate, that 400 jobs out of 16,000 would be turning the province into a bilingual province, where everyone has to have both official languages? MS. L.

OSLAND: No I don't think it would, but my point actually is to give us the choice. lt's not to change every child - I mean there's probably going to be, for all we know, 50 percent, 75 percent that are going to be against putting their child into a French Immersion School, but what about the people that want to and if you live in the city you can, but for anybody that doesn't live there, we can't just commute. I want to be able to offer it to my kids and I can't, unless they go through a French class, which I can already tell with one of my sons that it's not doing a bit of good.

He'll probably quit too, just like everyone else. 696 MS. M. PHILLIPS: That's all, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members of the committee? Seeing none, Ms. Osland, thank you very much for your presentation here today. MS. L. OSLAND: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Next on our list, Ray Sigurdson please. MR. R. SIGURDSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking to you today. I want to thank the government for making this opportunity available. I think that it's certainly going to help.

I don't know whether it's going to change the direction you take from now on, but I think at least we will have had our say, and I certai nly hop e that you take careful consideration of what is being said in these hearings. I'm going to make my remarks quite brief. I would say that it appears to me that the vast majority of the people in the lnterlake area are not in favour of the entrenchment of increased rights and services in the French language.

At vur June district meeting of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities for the lnterlake area, a re solution to that effect was carried, either unanimously or the next thing to it. I perhaps should have started by giving my name, Ray Sigurdson. I was born in the Gimli district, have farmed there all of my life. I'm also the Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Gimli and at the present time am a member of the Executive of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities. The remarks I'm making today are what I've been hearing in the last six months from the people I talk to, both municipal people and people on the street.

I suppose that we have no choice at this time but to honour

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act of 1870, which states that either English or French may be used in the Legislature and in the courts of law. Many believe that going any further than that will only create more problems than it solves. In 1879, the Manitoba Legislature passed The Official Languages Act which made English the official language. What was not done at that time was to apply to have our Constitution changed, which would have been the pr oper way to go ab out it.

I think the Ma nitoba Government, at this point, would be serving the vast majority of the citizens better if they were now asking for the necessary amendments to make English or whatever we call it - I don't really know whether it's English anymore, it was referred to the other day as Canadian and I tend to go along with that. I think that we have a tremendous infusion of words from all other groups that make up Manitoba at this time, words like holupchi and vinarterta, and all those become a part of the English language, so really we have a language of our own.

I think the average citizen on the streets of London would hardly understand us and I know that to be true because I've tried it. I think the effort now to turn back the clocks by almost 100 years will be a complete failure. I think there must be provision for the Federal Government to make those changes in our Constitution at the request of the

Monday, 26 September, 1983 Man itoba Go ver nment, because there is that overwhelming support to make English the official language of Manitoba. In 18 79, although they didn't go about it the right way, there must have at that time been an overwhelming need for that and you can imagine how much more so that need is now than what it was at that time.

If the Manitoba Government goes ahead with the entrenchment of French language rights as is proposed, we will be creating a small but very privileged class, and those are the people who are fluent in French as well as in English, as compa red to all the other ethnic groups, some of which are larger than the French group in Manitoba. I think the Manitoba Gov ernment has only two acceptable choices. One is to abide by

Section 23 of The Man itoba Act, as it wa s app lied in 18 70. I understand there would still possibly be a problem with translating a certain number of the old statutes that were in English only, however, I think it would be very foolish for anybody to suggest that they all needed to be translated. Only those that were fairly current and were not already redundant, and also the records of the Legislature from this point forward, as is being done at the present time. The other choice is to have the Constitution changed to make English the official language. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr . Sigurdson.

Questions for Mr. Sigurdson from members of the committee? Mr . Bucklaschuk. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr . Sigurdson, are you speaking as the reeve or as a private citizen? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I am making most of my remarks as a private citizen, however I am reflecting the opinions that I have gathered in the last six months in talking to not only municipal people, but my neighbours and people on the street. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, I want to make it very clear though. Are you speaking at the direction of the Council of the R.M. of Gimli, or are you speaking as an individual? MR. R.

SIGURDSON: The subject was discussed at our council meeting and we certainly encouraged any member of our council to attend here and make briefs if they felt the wish to do so, and I took that as permission for me to speak as a member of our council, also as a citizen of this area. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: You'r e saying that there was a resolution . . . MR. R. SIGURDSON: I'm not saying it's the official policy of either the Union of Manitoba Municipalities or our municipality, but I'm taking their feelings into consideration when I was making my statements. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: What I'm trying to clarify is the capacity in which you are making this brief to 697 this committee. You know at times I could speak as an individual, I can also speak as an MLA, and you can speak as an individual or as the Reeve of the R.M. of Gimli. I just want to make it very clear that you speaking as an individual and not as a result of some resolution which empowered you to speak on behalf of the council and the people in the R.M. of Gimli. MR. R. SIGURDSON: Okay, in that case, I'm speaking as an individual. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, that's what I wanted to know.

I have some further questions. The im pression I received from your brief is that you would agree that one of the positions, or the position of the Government of Manitoba could have taken was to let the Bilodeau case go to the Supr eme Court? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I believe so. I really feel that in discussions between the Manitoba Government and the other groups, the Franco-Manitoban Society and the Federal Government, that we would have been sort of better to allow that case to go forward because I believe that they wouldn't ha ve br ought down a judgment that was impossible to live with.

Another thing that makes me wonder is whether we bargained with really a full kn owledge of all the im plications. The fact that we were ready to make a deal that the other people were ready to accept would almost indicate that perhaps they had gotten the better of the deal. I feel that this is probably true. I really feel that we've kind of got our foot in a bear trap, and we don't know how to get it out without getting our head in it. I think that's the position we're in right now. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Sigurdson, you are relating to us your understanding of what the Bilodeau case is about? MR. R.

SIGURDSON: Yes. I think I understand it fairly well. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Would you mind conveying your thoughts on that to the committee? MR. R. SIGURDSON: The question before the Supr eme Court was whether all the laws of Manitoba were valid since 1879 because the Constitution had not been changed, and the Constitution read that either English or French may be used in the Legislature or the courts. I also would like to add that I do believe the Bilodeau case was planted in Manitoba to further the ambitions of the Federal Government in this manner. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: In fact, the Bilodeau case involves only two acts. lt involves The Sum mary Conviction Act and The Highway Traffic Act, but the outcome of the decision on that would have a bearing on the other 4,500 acts and statutes that we have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If the Supr eme Court were to rule that The Summa ry Conviction Act and The Highway Traffic Act were invalid because they had not

Monday, 26 September, 1983 been translated, what would you propose be done with the other 4,498 acts and statutes that could go through the same challenge? MR. R. SIGURDSON: Well I think that Mr. Reid had the answer for that today when he said that the Supreme Court judges are not fools, and there is no way they could bring down that kind of a judgment because there is no possible way it could be done within, say, 10 or 15 years at the minimum.

So I think we would have been every bit as well off to wait for the Supreme Court judges to bring down their decision, rather than strike up a deal that we're not absolutely sure or the majority of the citizens of Manitoba are not sure that it's favourable to us. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Was not the same type of opinion thrown about in 19 79 when the people of Manitoba agreed - numbers said, the Supreme Court would not dare throw out The Official Langua ges Act. it's been around for 89 years. The Supreme Court did throw it out, didn't it? MR. R.

SIGURDSON: A parallel to that would be a municipality passing a resolution to change one of their by-laws without going back and actually changing the by-law. lt still would not be legal without changing the original by-law. This is what I think has happened there. The Manitoba Government, in their wisdom when they changed The Official Langua ges Act or brought in The Official Languages Act, should have gone further and had the Constitution changed at the same time or before they actually enforced it. I admit that was a mistake.

I know it's a very touchy situation, and I sympathize with people in the government for the situation they're in, but I think that we have gone too far in making this deal. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: You would agree then that certain rights were provided to the French people in The Manitoba Act of 1870? MR. R. SIGURDSON: Would you repeat the question again? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: You would agree that certain rights were provided to the French people by the Constitution of Manitoba, The Manitoba Act of 1870? MR. R. SIGURDSON: Yes. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Do you feel that those same rights should still be respected today? MR.

R. SIGURDSON: I would be in favour of the same rights be in effect, until such time as the Constitution is changed. I don't think there's any choice in that matter. That isn't too hard to live with. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I gather, your resolution to the problem that is facing us at the present time would be to amend the act of 1870 to deny the rights that were given to the French people at that time. MR. R. SIGURDSON: I didn't quite catch the last part of that one. You'll have to excuse me. I have been dr iving too many noisy tractors, and my hearing's shot. 698 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Too many John Deeres.

My question was then, your resolution to the problem that is confronting us then would be to have the act of 1870 amended to ... MR. R. SIGURDSON: I think that would be a practical solution. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: . . . deny the rights of the French that they had at that time? MR. R. SIGURDSON: If I understand you correctly, I think that would be the correct solution at this point in time, because I certainly feel that the need is not there to entrench French language rights in the Province of Manitoba. I know that any skill you have that you don't use, you soon lose.

On our farm, we have had trainees from many different countries, and I'll just give you one instance. This boy came from Switzerland, and when he came here he felt he was fluent in English, German and French. He was with us for a few months, and we happened to have a fellow come into our yard. He wasn't from our district, but he spoke French. So I thought that this wot.:'d be the ideal time for this fellow to commu nicate with this man. They started trying to speak, and he says, oh my goodness. He couldn't figure out what had happened.

He said, he had almost forgotten how to use the French language in those eight months. He said, he was having real difficulty. I believe that. If we don't get the opportunity to use it, we'll soon lose it, and I don't think the opportunity is here in Manitoba to make it worthwhile to go to the expense. Right now, as reeve of the municipality, I must receive a stack of mail from the Provincial Government that high. Up 'till now, it's been mostly in English. You can imagine the waste for us to have that all in two languages, and it's completely unnecessary in our region. I don't speak for all of Manitoba.

I sympathize with areas that have the need. Why, there it's a different situation, but today I'm mainly speaking with our lnterlake Region. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: One final question and it's getting back to your suggestion that the act of 1870 should be amended. Can you think of any progr essive, democratic country where the Constitution has been changed to restrict rights, or do they, in fact, expand or guarantee rights in those countries? MR. R. SIGURDSON: Are you trying to say that there should not be a way of changing the Constitution if the need is no longer there to keep it as it is? NON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Normally , members of committees don't answer questions, and I won't. I am just making a statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Consider it a rhetorical question. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I guess my statement was, and I really wanted that information, are you aware of any prog ressive, democratic country where existing rights are being withdrawn or rescinded, or are they not in fact being entrenched and guaranteed?

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. R. SIGURDSON: Yes, I think I am. When the Icelandic settlers, for instance, settled on the shores of Lake Winnipeg and established the Republic of New Iceland, there were many rights and privi leges that they had at that time that had been withdrawn in the course of the last 90 years. I just mention one of them that comes to mind and that is the right to fish in the lake whenever they chose. MR. H. ENNS: Now, the Provincial Government tells them. MR. R. SIGURDSON: But that's just one point that comes to my mind, there no doubt are others. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Ms.

Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'm very interested, Sir , in your presentation in terms of we should be allowing this to proceed to the Supreme Court and your contention that they would probably rule to some degree less than what is proposed in this amendment. We had a brief this morning - were you attending this morning? - Mr. Renooy presented a brief on behalf of the South lnterlake Planning District. Is your municipality part of that district? MR. R. SIGURDSON: No, it is not. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: He was contending that this decision should be made by the Legislature of Manitoba and not be allowed up to the decision of the courts. Am I correct in assuming that you're saying it should be the other way around? MR. R. SIGURDSON: The reason I say that is because we were already in court. Now, normal ly, it should be the people in the Legislature that decide our direction. However, once you are in court I think you are in a different situation altogether. You see, that's the wrong way to do it, I'll agree with that. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: I'll just mention that that case was in court before this government came into office. So what I see this as in layperson's language, as an out of-court settlement to prevent what ·seems to me from my information a situation where the court could rule very harsh ly. Perhaps I think you were suggesting that they would be reasonable in terms of time limits. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question please. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: My question is, I do want to know whether you think we should just drop this in the Legislature, let it go to the Supr eme Court and then the people of Manitoba live with whatever decision the court comes down with, imposes on us? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I think in this case we should. The worst that I really can see happening - and it's just a guess - that would be that we would have to abide by The Manitoba Act of 1870, which we are at the present time pretty well doing, translating all the statutes and proceedings of the court. 699 MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr .

Chairperson, my question then comes to the content of this amendment, which is the provision of services from the Legislature and the courts that are outlined in The Manitoba Act, the provision of services, and how those should be delivered from the Provincial Government throughout the Province of Manitoba. You're suggesting that in your area there is not much demand, so there is no need to provide the services from the Provincial Government. I see in this amendment a

section dealing with provision from certain head offices and in areas where there is significant demand. Do you not find that to be a reasonable solution to your problem of having not a significant demand in your municipality or the need for provision of services in your municipality? Would that not be fair and reasonable to you? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I know that in our municipality there would be really, I can say no demand whatsoever for those services to be in French. I feel that the cost of providing that in two languages far outweighs the need.

The actual need I doubt would be for more than 2 percent of the citizens, if that, that now would not fully understand all documents in English. They could certainly get that help very quickly if there was a problem. MS. M. PHILLIPS: So what you're saying is that there wouldn't be a need in your area. What I'm suggesting, where there isn't a need in an area like yours, it is not necessary to provide it and go into that great expense that you are concerned about.

If we left this to the court and the court said all the services must be provided in all the Provincial Government offices throughout the province, then you would be in the situation, would you not, of having to provide the services in your area, or we would, as government, have to provide the services in your area and hire bilingual people or whatever, regardless of whether there was a need or not? Would we not be avoiding that by adopting this amendment, rather than let it go to court? MR. R.

SIGURDSON: You are guessing at the judgment the court would bring and actually wha t you are proposing they might rule is actually what you want to go ahead and do voluntarily. I'd say we don't have to take that chance. We can see whether they rule that. If they rule that all government information must go out in French and English, why, we'll have to live with that up until such time as we have amendments made to the act of 1870 to change that, so that's not necessary. So why should we do it before we have to do it, before we're requir ed to do it? Why should we offer to do it without being compelled to? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would draw the attention of members, the questions are to be for clarification. The last few questions have bordered on engaging in debate with the position taken by the witness. I would ask the honourable member to phrase her questions as questions for clarification and not to engage in debate, please. Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chair person, I'm trying very hard. I guess one question I must ask, if

Monday, 26 September, 1983 we are guessing by saying this amendment is more restrictive, is more limited and less expensive than what we assume the court will rule, are you not then guessing that the court will rule in a way that is more favourable or less expensive than what we're suggesting in the amendment? MR. R. SIGURDSON: That's what I'm saying, I think they will. MR. H.

ENNS: Reeve Sigurdson, just to make you feel better, you said, no, that you are in reasonably good legal company inasfar as that the Queen's Bench, the court of Manitoba has turned down the Bilodeau case; the App eal Court of Manitoba with learned Justices on it have turned down the Bilodeau case; and the suggestion that is being made all the time that the Bilodeau case is automatically going to be won, the Supreme court case, I would ask you, I know that you're not of legal backgrou nd, but you ought to be comforted in knowing that some very excellent legal minds don't share the view that's being expressed by government members that the Bilodeau case is automatically going to be won at that level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Sigurdson, I wanted to ask you one particular question, a question that Mr . Bucklaschuk has asked or was very concerned about, just who you were speaking for, either as reeve, or as representative of the rural municipalities organization which you are an executive member of, or as an individual person? Perhaps I could ask it in a different way, Reeve Sigurdson. I take it that you are standing or letting your name stand for re-election as reeve of the R.M. of Gimli this coming October. MR. R. SIGURDSON: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Enns. MR. H.

ENNS: Is there anything that you have said to this committee today that makes you nervous about your chances of re-election? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I didn't have that in mind at all. I am speaking my own mind, and not what I think will bring me votes or votes against me. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Sigurdson, jus� to clarify a few points if I could in your presentation, first I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong, please, sir - you stated that it was in your opinion okay to go ahead with the translation of the statutes, and also to provide services in French in some areas.

You said, like in the lnterlake, it's obviously not needed, but in other areas of the province, south of Winnipeg for instance, it would be needed. Then you went on to say that you would prefer to see

Section 23 changed to delete any reference to French in that section. I am wondering which side of 700 the fence, whatever you're going to come out on. If you were a Member of the Legislature or a federal Member of Parliament, would you be lobbying for the deletion of the French language reference in

Section 23 of The French Language Act, or would you be trying to maintain the services and the translation of the statutes as are presently required? MR. R. SIGURDSON: That's a fairly hard question. I think that I would be in favour of leaving the

Section 23 as it was in 1870, but only to have it the right for a person to use either French or En glish in the Legislature and the courts. I wouldn't go further than that. I wouldn't say we had to make all our government agencies and boards provide all their material in both languages. MR. D. SCOTT: Reeve Sigurdson, within the British system of common law, law is set basically by precedent in similar jur isdictions. We have had references come down to language acts, particularly in Quebec where their official language act, Bill 101 I believe is what it was numbered, has been substantially reduced in its effect.

One of the courts even ruled that the reference to official languages i:>'l't really even applicable. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. We're getting into the presentation of extraneous informa tion again. Although the information may deal with the subject matter, it wasn't the subject of the brief. Could the member come to his question please, without introducing references to other legislation or other provinces? MR. D. SCOTT: Mr . Chairman, Reeve Sigurdson has referred to limiting the French language only to the Legislature and the courts. The reason I was giving that slight

preamble there was because the courts have traditionally interpreted that in an expansive sense, in that it does not refer, at least as far as Quebec goes - and Quebec has the same language as Manitoba and also the Government of Canada has similar language - the act does not say, only the Legislature and the courts. In almost any reference that has gone to the courts so far, they have interpreted it on an expansion of the jur isdiction of the Legislature and the jur isdiction of the courts. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. MR. D.

SCOTT: So given that connotation, what is your expectation that if you wanted to go back and just to limit it to the Legislature and the courts, do you not recognize that you would likely be overturned by the courts and that you are trying to read something into the act that was not there? MR. CHAIRMAN: If you followed that, you can answer it. I didn't follow it. MR. R. SIGURDSON: This would be an interim thing. I would be in favour of getting the opinion of the majority of the people in Manitoba, and I say, the vast major ity. With that in hand, I would try to make changes to the act of 18 70.

Because I think that if it was felt to be I

Monday, 26 September, 1983 needed in 18 70, it's much much more so now and would stop a lot of confusion and stop a lot of hard feelings around the country. There is no way we're going to avoid that, and I think it's insane for a government to go ahead with the legislation as intended right now. MR. D. SCOTT: Following that response, I'm wondering if you recognize that what we are trying to do is we're trying to change

Section 23, but it's not our act. lt is a federal act. All we, as a Legislature, can do is pass a resolution requesting the government to change our act. The Government of Canada then follows and changes the act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. MR. D. SCOTT: Given that, do you see any possibility of a Federal Government of any stripe doing away with minority language rights in Canada? In other words, can you see a Federal Government being able to strike out the rights of the English language minority in Quebec, or the French langua ge mi nority in New Brunswick, or in Manitoba?

Can you see that being feasible for a Federal Government to make such of a change? MR. R. SIGURDSON: Once the need is no longer there, then I see no reason why it cannot be changed or should not be changed. I think the need is much greater to make English the official language right now than the need to entrench both French and English into our Constitution. MR. D. SCOTT: Who determines need, the majority or the minority whose rights are protected for that service? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I'm not quite sure if I understood the question quite right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scott, could you rephrase the question? MR. D.

SCOTT: You just stated, I believe, that when the need is no longer there, the Francophone community in Manitoba is telling us, there is a need, and they want to be able to have services as provided for under The Manitoba Act from their government. You are saying to them that they don't have the need. Who tells that need? Is it the English-speaking major ity, or do the people whose minority rights are protected determine when they want to give up that right? MR. R.

SIGURDSON: I suspect that the need that the Franco -Manitoban Society is telling us is there is being prompted by a campaign from the Federal Government at this present time. I think there is no doubt about it. The willingness of the Prime Minister to try to get the Oppo sition Leader and Ed Broadbent into his camp on this issue shows the enthusiasm and zeal that they have to push this thing through in Manitoba. I kind of think that we are being used as pawns in that game. Otherwise, I don't see Trudeau going and trying to get the opposition together with him in an agreement on anything right now.

Why the real desire to have Manitoba bilingual when the people of Manitoba, by and large, aren't interested, could care less whether it is or not except for maybe a handful of people? ·MR. D. SCOTT: Just as a final comment and question then, you do not believe that there is any demand by the Francophone community in Manitoba for service in French. Is that what you're saying? 701 MR. R. SIGURDSON: I'm not saying, there isn't any. There is some. We can't argue that there isn't any. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr . Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Reeve Sigurdson, you have stated that you would prefer that the Bilodeau case go to court, and the province live with the Supreme Court decision that might be rendered in that case. Is that correct? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I believe I said that I don't think that a decision of the Supreme Court would go as far as the amendments that are being proposed. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment that we have here in this resolution, I believe, states that, instead of 4,500 statutes, only 300 or 400 would have to be translated.

If the Province of Manitoba is in agreement with that, if the Society Franco-Manitoban is in agreement with that, and if the Federal Government is in agreement with that, do you think a Supreme Court would broaden the scope of req uir ed translation above and beyond wha t the province, the Federal Government and the Society Franco-Manitoban are already in agreement on? MR. R. SIGURDSON: I don't think so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? MR. H. GRAHAM: No further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sigurdson, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you very much for appearing here today. MR. R.

SIGURDSON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Velma Adamek. Velma Adamek, please. Karl Lange, please. Karl Lange. MR. T. HOFFMAN: I am Ted Hoffman from the Local Government District of Graha mville, and I'm reading this brief on behalf of Karl Lange as he was unable to attend. MR. CHAIRMAN: What was your name again sir? MR. T. HOFFMAN: Ted Hoffman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Hoffman?

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. T. HOFFMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MR. T. HOFFMAN: Mr . Chairman and members of this committee, I am pleased to be here today to present the brief on the very important matter of French Languages Services for Manitoba. I am a farmer in Moosehorn district, and I am here today repres enting my own views and concerns on this matter. My ethnic background is German, and I am married to a woman whose ethnic backgrou nd is Ukrainian. Both of these are minorities in Manitoba population.

Because we belong to mi nority ethnic backgrounds, I feel compelled to be here to support our Manitoba Government and the resolution they are proposing for French Langua ge Services. Let me explain. In 18 70, when Manitoba became a province, our ancestors declared that there would be two official languages. Now more than 100 years later, the French speaking people of Manitoba are a minority. Services in their language is their right, not merely their privi lege. If therefore, we deny them as a minority their right, other minorities like Germans, Ukrainians, and Natives haven't got a chance.

I am not suggesting that ethnic groups be given the legal right for language services. I am suggesting, however, that if we want our particular cultural contribution to be kept alive in this province, we shall receive very little encouragement and support if we develop an attitude of opposing minorities. So I say, let not the English-speaking majority have their way in this matter. Let us reaffirm the right of the French speaking minority and, by so doing, protect the rights and privi leges of the minorities.

Remembering that German and Ukrainian schools were closed in 1916 , we know how possible and maybe even probable it is to stamp out ethnic minorities in the province, and that is just what I don't want to see happen. Another point I wish to make is simply this.

Let us support our Manitoba Government and the resolution they are proposing as the only sensible alternative to a situation brought upon us by a person who is threatening to take to the Supr eme Court of Canada his case against English-only written law in Manitoba. it seems highly ridiculous to me that people who say they are against French Language Services in Manitoba would oppose the resolution, which is intended to limit French Language Services in the province. If Mr .

Bilodeau's case goes to the Supreme Court, we may very well end up with much more French in the province than we will if the resolution of the Manitoba Government is passed. If you are opposed to any, you might better support the less than the more. There will be less as a result of the resolution; more if the Supreme Court rules the matter. I conclude by saying that I strongly support the proposed resolution of our Manitoba Government for the reasons I have outlined. Karl Lange, Moosehorn, Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr . Hoffman, for reading Mr. Lange's brief.

Are you prepared to answer any questions? Did you discuss it with him? MR. T. HOFFMAN: Well I do feel much of the same. 702 MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if any members have questions but, if you are prepared to try to answer them, I'm. sure members would ap preciate it. MR. T. HOFFMAN: I will try. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from members of the committee for Mr. Hoffman? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Hoffman, just a couple of points, don't you think that the main respons ibility to continue a language or a culture is up to the family or a language group, rather than the government?

I mean, if you want to teach your children German and Ukrainian, do you really have to have a grant? I mean, can't that be done in the home? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Hoffman. MR. T. HOFFMAN: I think there is such a thing as grants, if it's requested to learn other languages than French in schools. MR. R. DOERN: I'm saying, as a parent - I assume you have some children? MR. T. HOFFMAN: Yes. MR. R. DOERN: Did you, yourself, teach your kids any German or Ukrainian over the years? MR. T. HOFFMAN: I failed to do so. I didn't do any. MR. R. DOERN: Ar e you familiar with the German Society of Winnipeg? MR. T.

HOFFMAN: No, not really. MR. R. DOERN: And are you familiar with the Franco Manitoban Society? MR. T. HOFFMAN: No, not really. MR. R. DOERN: Well I just wondered whether you would have heard, for example, that in one instance the Franco-Manitoban Society . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The pu rpose of questions is to seek clarification, not provide additional information. MR. R. DOERN: Fine. Thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Questions from other members for Mr . Hoffman? Seeing none, Mr. Hoffman, thank you very much for reading Mr. Lange's brief here today. Mr. Mike Taczynski. Mr.

Taczynski please. MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike Taczynski, and I reside at Gypsumville. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, all my life I have had a serene and peaceful existence. Being a citizen of this province and a member of its society,

Monday, 26 Septembe r, 1983 I always felt that I would not be fulfilling my duty if I did not participate in its political and social life. So I participated fully. I follow the activities in the Legislature. I read extensively and generally keep myself well informed. We have seen some very good legislation passed since the party of so-called free enterprise, greed and exploitation were thrown out on their ear out of the Leg islatur e. The point at issue is the inalienable right of the people of this province to speak in the language of their choice in either of two official languages of our country.

When our province was formed one of the fundamental rights of its people was the right to express themselves in either French or English. This situation existed until 18 97 when the Eng lish-speaking government to some extent restricted the use of French. In 1916 , the use of French was totally abolished and the Fre nch- speak ing citizens who had been commun icating with other citizens in French were denied that right. Talk about freedom, let's stand back and look at the situation.

Citizens of this province who speak French have been speaking it since time immemoriaL They may be fluent in English, but there is a difference in the words of a farmer from Giroux. "I have a feeling that I don't quite belong when I have to use English. I feel just a little bit awkward, I've been speaking French for ages and it comes as naturally to me as English comes to you." Now put yourselves in his place. How would it be if you were denied the right to speak the tongue that your mother spoke to you from the day you were born, except that it's English in your case? I know it's difficult, but try.

Now you know how it would feel. We live in one province. Our parents came from four corners of the earth. They speak a myriad of tongues and the greatest favour we could do for each other is accord each other the freedom to dream, to think, to speak and still accept each other as a fellow Canadian without the slightest hint that he's something different. That's how I feel.

The hardest thing to break amidst the population is the thinking that "we conquered the French and they should speak English." This would be acceptable if this was a dictatorship, but we're telling everybody that this is a democracy and it would look somewhat awkward if we imposed the use of English on our French-speak ing citizens. In those distant days of 17 59, the English conquerers of Canada were magnanimous enough to let the citizens of the country speak their own tongue, can't we do at least that much now?

I would like to think that the days of 17 59 are gone; that we live in a new world, a more tolerant world where we don't force our will on other people. What was accepted in 17 59 is not accepted now, especially as our French speaking citizens are not conquered people but free citizens. it would be my hope that as people live together in communities over a period of time, a long period of time, I have to concede, that they will get used to each other, get used to the sound of different speech and accept and tolerate their neighbours, even if they do speak a different language.

What triggered this whole issue off is a pending case in the judicial process wher e a man demands that certain acts be written in French. The association of Franco-Manitobans offered not to proceed with the case 703 if the Government of Manitoba pledge constitutional right to the French-speaking people of Manitoba that we will have the right to use French in public institutions where there is need for it.

The Conservative Party decided to grab this as an issue to improve its image which had deteriorated a great deal due to the circus antics of its leader and his cohorts in the Legislature resulting in total loss of respect for them in the population. They were looking for an issue that would arouse emotions and they pounced on this, that their vicious opposition will arouse hostility, didn't seem to worry them as long as it directed public attention from their dismal performance in the Legislature. And here I want to point out the inconsistency of the Cons ervative stand.

As well they insist that the Legislature is supreme. They are determined that the Legislature will have no hand in solving this problem and are insisting that the whole matter should be left to the courts. But their obstruction has only one purpose. Sometime in the future if the Francophone rights were not imbedde d in the Constitution a Conservative government could simply abrogate these rights and we would be back in 18 79 and 1916 . Their opponents, through this legislation, amongst other things, claim that if you give in to the French, you have a proliferation of languages in our province.

One of the things that they overlook is that as people have command of more than one language, they become more proficient in all languages automatically and the cultural and educational level of their population would be higher. I wonder what Sterling Lyon will do now that his federal leader has openly proclaimed his support for the equali ty of the two official langua ges. The parliament's supreme issue here after all is said and done is the unity and tranquility of our country.

If the Manitoba Government yielded to the dissention fostered by the Conservatives that would have repercussions in other parts of the country such as Quebec where an English-speaking minority occupies a position reverse of the French minority here. Don't you think that the whole Quebec would be watching what we do here? By this agreement with the Franco- Ma nitoban organization, the Government of Manitoba is saving the province $9 to $1 1 million, which would be the sum that would be spent if there was no agreement and the case went through all the stages of litigation until it wound up before the Supreme Court.

The turmoil created by the opposition to this legislation poses a great danger to our province and also to our country. The sooner we face this issue with good will and tolerance, the better. Our country's future may be at stake. Respectfully submitted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Taczynski. Questions for Mr . Taczynski from members of the committee? Mr . Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Through you to Mr. Taczynski, Mr .

Taczynski, in your brief, you said that you do a great deal of reading on political matters, I presume, and on the affairs of State and you read the Hansards and all the rest of it. Have

Monday, 26 September, 1983 you read Mr. Lyon's speech which he gave when this resolution was first introduced in the Legislature? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Yes, I did read it thoroughly. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Taczynski, I also like to read. Being a farmer, quite often I read the Grain News, which is a magazine put out by the United Grain Growers. There is a column in there that is written by a Mr. Mike Taczynski. Is that the same person? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: That column is entitled, "The Report from the Left," is it? MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Taczynski, I appr eciate that column very much because I think, if we added that column to the brief that you have presented here today, we might have a much broader understanding of the person that has made the brief. I would like to ask you if your concerns today in this very important matter that is before this committee are concerns that are based on the need of the French com mu nity in Manitoba, or are they political concerns that are raised by yourself? MR. M.

TACZYNSKI: I thought I emphasized in my brief that it's natural for a person that has been speaking his or her native language to feel most comfortable in that language. Nothing can ever take its place. I have to admit something else in my own mental makeup. There was a time when I used to pray to God, "Good Lord, make it so that I could speak English as well as I speak Ukrainian." Now I phrase my prayer in the reverse order, "Good Lord, make it so that I speak Ukrainian as well as I can speak English." MR. H. ENNS: Why don't you pray for French? MR. M.

TACZYNSKI: This particular farmer in Giroux was very sincere, and you can't hold it against him for having spoken French all his life. lt's a French-speaking commun ity, and he feels more comfortable in French than he does in English, the same as I feel more comfortable in English now than I do in Ukrainian. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to assure you, Mr. Taczynski, that all members of this committee believe that everybody that appears before them are very sinc ere and earnest in their considerations that they put before us.

That's why we are here to listen to them. 1t was not with a sense of frivolity or anything that I asked you those questions. I know the sincerity with which you have always spoken, but I wanted to know whether it was primarily a political concern that you had or whether it was a concern for the French-spe aking people. MR. M. TACZYNSKI: I am animated by only one single objective, that everyone of us, you and I and the rest of this audience, have the widest freedom to speak the language that they desire. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you. 704 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members? Mr. Malinowski. MR. D.

MALINOWSKI: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Taczynski, how many languages to you speak? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: I speak Ukrainian, Polish and a bit of English. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Thank you. Mr. Taczynski, you mentioned something about 19 16, that French language was eliminated from the school. Are you aware that also 11 8 Ukrainian schools were closed in the same year, and also approximately 3,000 Mennonites chose to leave the province in order to maintain their cultural heritage? Are you aware of that? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: I am fully aware of that.

I heard my parents discussing it years after it happened. MR. CHAIRMA N: I would point out to honourable members that the introduction of additional information does not assist in clarifying the brief. Further questions? MR. D. MALINOWSKI: A further question, do you believe a full implementing this

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act to our Constitution, that something like that which occurred in 1916 won't repeat again? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: I am very much afraid of it. If some time in the future a Conservative Government is elected, I have absolutely no doubt in this world that they would abolish the right of the French-speaking people to speak their own langua ge unless the Constitution could stymie it. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Okay. Ukrainian spoken here. MR. M. T�.CZYNSKI: Ukrainian spoken here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr . Taczynski? Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I too appreciate our witness's long interest in politics. You might remember, Sir, who was the government in 1916 when certain langua ge rights, specific education rights, were withdrawn? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Norris, a Li beral Government. MR. H. ENNS: lt was a Li beral Government? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Yes. MR. H. ENNS: You would recall that in early 19 60, the first serious efforts to restoration of French language rights in education were restored. Who would have been the government at that time? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: The Conservative Government. MR. H. ENNS: Under Mr. Roblin?

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Yes. MR. H. ENNS: lt was also a Conservative Government that brought language instruction in French into the educ ational system. Was that not the case, Mr . Taczynski? MR. M. TACZYNSKI: There was some use of French before that. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Taczynski by members of the committee? Seeing none, Mr. Taczynski, thank you very much for your presentation here this afternoon. MR. M. TACZYNSKI: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: In case members were wondering why I skipped Item No. 5, it was asked to be removed from the list as well as Item No. 9. I'll now call No. 10. Marga ret Smith, please. Margaret Smith. John Cochrane. John Cochrane, please. MR. J. COCHRANE: Members of the comm ittee, I'm not here representing a group. I'm simply representing my own viewpoint, as I have been asked to do.

The reason that I felt that I had to do so is because we hear a great deal of talk in the media about people who are in opposition to the present legislation, and I think that it's necessary, therefore, for people who do support the legislation to speak out. In 18 70, of course, Manitoba would not have become a province if it were not for the actions of Manitobans led by Francophones. They fought not only to prevent Manitoba coming into the country as a governed territory, but also for their own language rights. As a result, they got a Constitution which granted them those rights.

In 18 90, as soon as the government was able to finagle the situation around and get enough votes to find themselves in a powerful enough position, they immediately reneged on those prom ises, and passed the law which went dir ectly counter to the intent of the 18 70 legislation. Throughout the years then, the Franc o-Manitobans had to struggle to maintain their language and did, I think, an excellent job in that struggle.

We all know the stories probably of how books in the French langua ge were ban ned from schools, and it was necessary to almost smuggle books into the school and hide them when the superintendent or rather the inspectors came around in order that some French language could be maintained. This is the kind of struggle, this is the kind of background that has led to the present time. Final ly, after these years of struggle, Franco Manitobans have come to the point where they have said, we are not putting up with this injustice any longer. These are our rights.

Even though we are a minority, we are entitled to rights as a minori ty. These rights are ours in law. Therefore, they took to the courts. In view of the decisions that have come down from the Supr eme Court, it is pretty clear, I think - I'm not 705 a lawyer, but I think it's pretty clear what the kind of decision would be; that it would have, in fact, been a decision which would have been very expensive for Manitoba, and perhaps even disruptive. The worst possible scenario, of course, would be that Manitoba's laws would all be disallowed.

That, of course I would think, would probably be not very likely, but it exists. The Manitoba Government then faced the choice of either fighting that through the courts or, recognizing that right was on the side of the Franco -Manitoban community, negotiating a settlement which could be lived with by both sides. The result is, in its original form I think, something that can be lived with, certainly as far as I'm concerned. A number of people, I'm sure, agree that it is a sensible, simple course of action.

In fact, I often find myself wondering why in the world there is any opposition to what is simply a method of implementing what should have been done 100 years ago. One of the reasons that immediately comes up, and I hear it coming up often when people present their viewpoints - they present sort of rational reasons why but then, sneaking into the background, comes this almost paranoic, racist attitude that somehow the French are out to get us, and that we've got to defend ourselves against these terrible people led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the original devil incarnate.

I don't know if you can answer that kind of an argument. lt has its own logic, its own reasons, its own rationale, and you can't really deal with that in any kind of rational way other than simply to say, identify it as what it is, racism. Other people state that we should leave this to the courts, since the courts will have a nice sensible decision. I've been sitting here for awhile. I heard Mr. Graham suggest that, if this is what the Franco Manitoban Society and the Manitoba Government have agreed to, then surely the courts won't go any further than that.

Well if we leave it to the courts, all I can say is that I'm glad that the people who would make such a suggestion are not in government, because I'd hate to think of what other ways they would find to waste my tax money, fighting something that should not be fought in the first place. Other objections have been raised that it should not be, in fact, embedded in the Constitution. They raised the spectre of endless court battles.

Well the Winnipeg Free Press, which is not exactly known as a pro government newspap er, has dealt with that in an editorial in which it simply points out the reality that similar prom ises - in fact, the exact same word ing - exists in the present Canadian Constitution, and similar promis es of even more extensive nature are given to the Province of New Brunswick. We don't exactly have a swarm of cases presented to them as a result of that.

I surely would hope that the people would understand, in view of the his tory of the Franco- Manitoban commu nity, why Franco- Manitobans would desire that the matter be embedded in the Constitution. lt is not something that they want to have tossed about like a ball and avai lable to be taken out any time the government wishes it to be taken out. They want it to be embedded in the Constitution as a guarantee. They have the precedent. In 18 70, they had the rights right in law, and it was taken away from them. But because it was in law, they were able to fight back.

That, I think, is the principle upon which they wish it embedded in the Constitution, and which I would completely endorse.

Monday, 26 Septe�b er, 1983 I think it's necessary to protect the rights of all minorities. If we start to yield on one point, the question is: where do you draw the line? How can you defend the rights of one group to maintain its language and then say, we're going to take away what other groups already have? lt seems to me that this is not a position that can be defended. Racism today is being raised throughout the Western world. The reason is obvious because we are living in difficult economic times, and I think we must fight back wherever we see any vestige of racism.

I'm not saying, of course, that all opponents of this legislation are racist, but nevertheless many of them are quite willing to allow racism to be used in the argument without specifically combating it by their own words and actions. I think that in Manitoba, as well as in Canada, we enjoy an accident of history that allows us to be a bilingual nation, a nation that can be built out of many, a pluralism. By denying the rights of one group - and these are rights that already exist - by denying those rights, we are denying our birthright as a pluralistic society. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Cochrane.

Questions for Mr. Cochrane from members of the committee? Mr . Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Cochrane, I choose to dir ect a question to you because it has been raised not only here at Arborg, but other meetings of this committee, the tying together of the issue before us, which after all is fairly clear - expansion of French services in Manitoba - with that of all other minority rights. Let me examine with you, what rights to Icelanders or Mennonites or Germans or Ukrainians have in our Constitution, in our system? I'm not aware of any.

Can you name me any legal rights that people of those other ethnic backgrou nds, other than the two fou nding nations, English and French, have in our country? MR. J. COCHRANE: I don't know of any point, for example, in the Constitution where they are forbidden the use of their language, even the use of their own schools. These are rights that they have, even if they are not specifically spelled out. My point is that if one is prepared to start taking rights away which exist in law, where do you stop? The rights of one group cannot be taken away. Then you immediately begin to start taking rights away from others.

MR. H. ENNS: I'm sorry, you didn't answer my question. The right for me as a parent to educate my childr en or pass on the culture that I choose to, I don't think anybody in Manitoba or in Canada or indeed in many parts of the world would take issue with. I am asking you, many proponents speaking for this resolution talk about certain rights of other ethnic minority groups. We are not talking about other ethnic minority groups here; we are talking about expansion of French rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a question? MR. H.

ENNS: My question to you is: Can you point out to me - I'm not aware of any specific rights or 706 obligations that the Mani toba Government or the Canadian Government has to ethnic groups belonging of the German community, of the Ukrainian commun ity, the Jewish community, Spanish, Portuguese community. I would be interested. I think you're a reasonably astute and knowledgeable person. Can you suggest to me that I am wrong? MR. J. COCHRANE: I think that you're missing the point.

The point is that there are certain rights which the Franc o-Manitoban commnity should enjoy in law, and this has been recognized by Supr eme Court. Those rights in law which I agree with because, as I've pointed out in my initial remarks, it was the Franco- Manitobans who led this country into Confederation, and those rights must be protected. I look upon this as a protection of rights, not as an extension of rights. In the same way, I look upon the rights to educate your childr en in the language, to protect your culture. Those rights are not automatic.

If you don't know that, then you don't know very much history. Those rights have had to be protected. The biggest, most well-known example, perhaps, is Germany in the '40s when rights were denied to people. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the rules of the committee don't force a witness to answer the question. Allow me simply to state again, as a person of Mennonite backgrou nd, I know of no rights that I have specifically guaranteed me, as does the French communi ty correctly have under the Act of Confederation of 18 70, under the amended case brought forward by the Supreme Court in 19 79.

Mennonite people do not have that right. Now, that doesn't stop the Mennonite community from having their own schools, practising their own language in their chur ches and doing a host of things that we of the Mennonite community have done, but I fail to see the linkage. Now obviously, Mr. Chairman, the witness doesn't wish to answer that question. I will ask the other question. What rights are being denied? I'm really baffled. I want to know what rights are being denied? We're not talking about denying anybody rights.

In fact, it's often pointed out to us by mem bers oppo site that it was the Conservative administration that accepted, a la the Forest case, the Supreme Court decision that struck down the illegal act of 18 90 . A MEMBER: Where's your opposition? MR. H. ENNS: . . . that at that time restored totally to Square One the initial rights granted to the Franco community society in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. MR. H. ENNS: Why do we have to do anything to restore something that we all acknowledge is there? No action being contemplated, no matter how we look at this resolution, is taking any rights away.

Even many of the spokespeople . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. Order please. Mr. Enns, I have provided . . .

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. H. ENNS: Which rights are being taken away? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I have provided you a great deal of liberty because I appr eciate that it's a very important point, the question you're wanting to ask, but you are engaging in debate with the witness. MR. H. ENNS: I apologize. MR. CHAIRMAN: The witness has answered the question as he chose to answer it twice. Answering the question a third time isn't going to improve the thing other than to engage in further debate. I think questions should be clarification of the information provided in the presentation. Mr.

Cochrane, do you have an answer? MR. J. COCHRANE: If the Conservatives acknowledge then that this is what should be done, I don't understand where the problem is. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure Mr. Cochrane that we in the Conservative Party don't think there is a problem. We wouldn't be here in Arborg today discussing a problem; we would be continuing advancement of . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. You're debating the matter with the witness. Do you have a question? MR. H.

ENNS: One small question, which specific rights are being withd rawn from the French com muni ty whether the resolution before us passes or doesn't pass? MR. J. COCHRANE: The resolution attempts to put into law and put into the Constitution those rights, and specifically indicate where French Language Services can or will be extended. Without that being placed in the Constitution, where is the guarantee that it will not be removed in the future? That, I think, is what motivates a large part of the feelings of the French commun ity. I can certainly understand that, given their experience. MR. H. ENNS: Mr .

Chairman, how is it then possible for Mr . Forest to set this whole country upside down on a parking ticket at the expense of some 30,000 or 40,000 of taxpayers' dollars to make sure that his rights were being respected; that that parking ticket had to be in English and French without this entrenchment, I remind you? If you are suggesting to me that the Francophone community have no rights . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Ord er, order please. Mr. Enns, again, a long

preamble - that is a debate not a question. If you have questions for clarification, I would appr eciate hearing them. Otherwise, I am going to be forced as your Chairman to continually call you to order . Do you have a question, please? MR. H. ENNS: Under what rights was it possible for Mr. Forest to have the Supreme Court decide that a whole history, 93-year history of Manitoba lawmaking is in jeopardy and the original law wrong of 18 90? 707 Under what rights did Mr . Forest manage to establish that? MR. J. COCHRANE: By appealing to the law of 18 70, as you well know. MR. H.

ENNS: Which the law of 18 70 established certain specific language rights for the Francophone community, right? MR. J. COCHRANE: But not to the extent obviously that it was necessary, otherwise, why have we had 10 0 years of Franco- Mani toban struggle? Why was it necessary? lt ob viously was not strong enough. Obviously, more was needed. MR. H. ENNS: One final question, the 18 70 terms of condition of Confederation when Manitoba became a province provided the specific language rights in the Legislature, in the courts and the journals of the House.

Nobody is suggesting that they should be diminished or be taken away. Is it fair then to say that your presentation before us is to see that those French services are considerably expanded in the form of this resolution, just so we understand this? MR. J. COCHRANE: I think that it is right that a French speaking Manitoban should be able to communicate with his government in his own language. MR. H. ENNS: Okay, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cochrane, we don't have a debate here really. I want to assure you, the Conservative Party accepts that position. Sterling Lyon accepted that position in 19 79, after the Forest case.

Is it fair to sum up your presentation as being not satisfied with that 18 70 position, but wishing to see French services considerably advanced beyond that? MR. J. COCHRANE: I wouldn't consider the present amendment to be considerable advancement beyond that, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee? Mr . Brown. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question to Mr. Cochrane, first of all, is do you reside in this particular area? MR. J. COCHRANE: If you define what I mean by this area, it's the lnterlake; I guess I do live in the lnterlake, yes. MR. A.

BROWN: You live in the lnterlake area. In your opening statement you said that you came out here to express your own viewpoint, as you had been asked to do. Would you tell us who asked you to come and make a presentation? MR. J. COCHRANE: My wife, for one. I am not now a member of the New Democratic Party, if that's the intent of your question, and it was not specifically at the urging of the New Democratic Party that I am here.

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. A. BROWN: Are you aware at the present time that the English language is not entrenched in the Constitution of Manitoba, nor is the English community asking for entrenchment? MR. J. COCHRANE: Considering that we are the majority, I don't really think that's very much of an issue; it's only an issue where a language is a minor ity. Minorities need protection, majorities don't. MR. A. BROWN: And it's on that basis then that you think that the French language should be entrenched? MR. J. COCHRANE: Yes. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee? Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Cochrane, you obviously empathize with the Francophone minority in the province and have, I think, as a non-Francophone - at least I believe you're not a Francophone - have sort of tried to put yourself a bit in their boots, and recognize the problems that they have as a minority trying to maintain rights that they feel that they do have, Is that not a fair assessment? MR. J. COCHRANE: As I understand your question, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Scott, could you reph rase the question without a long

preamble? MR. D. SCOTT: Given what the impact of the proposed resolution is, in following Mr . Enns's questions, when the rights are already existent in the Province of Manitoba, then this could ma ybe be seen to be somewhat educational even in a way of recog nizing the right s that Francophones already have in the province? MR. J. COCHRANE: Certainly, there's no other reason. MR. D.

SCOTT: There has been analogy made in the past - and I'll finish the question with the analogy, and ask you if you agree with it - but in minorities, in general, where they have rights that are not normally addressed and accepted by the majority, when those minorities stand up for those rights there is usually a backlash by the majority towards that minority for standing up for its rights.

Perhaps, and I don't mean this at all to be a crass comparison, but do you feel that there could be a comparison made between this situation here, and with the civil rights movement in the U.S. in the earlier days where people, as long as the blacks went to the back of the bus, didn't recognize them, but when they sat up front of the bus and demanded their rights that they did notice them and reacted against it? MR. J. COCHRANE: Perhaps a trifle over-extended but, yes, in the main the analogy is certainly there. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, sir. 708 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr.

Cochrane from members of the committee? Mrs. Smith. HON. M. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering if Mr . Cochrane would agree that what Mr. Bilodeau was seeking was a greater degree of protection for minority French language rights in Manitoba, and what the proposed resolution offers is that greater degree of protection through entrenchment, a more reasonable package of statutes to be translated at a lesser cost with some federal dollars to assist, and a clear timetable for the translation of those statutes; and that is really the package under debate. MR. J.

COCHRANE: That would certainly seem to be his intention. I can't go into Mr . Bilodeau's head, but that would certainly seem to be his intention, to clearly establish that there had to be translation of these documents on a clear-cut timetable, and that the language receive a definite protection, which it did not seem to have sufficient protection. HON. M.

SMITH: Would you also care to comment on how the other minority groups see the connection to the French language rights issue, that it has been more a response on an attitudinallevel, that they feel if there's a disregard for minority rights in one area that there will be an attitudinal return, if you like, to the old looking down upon people who were not English speaking by birth? MR. J. COCHRANE: I think I tried to present that idea in my brief, I guess I didn't place it forward too well.

As I say, the actions against one minority group can lead to actions against other minority groups, you can't draw the line at one and say, we'll take the rights away from this group, and that's as far as we're going to go. The struggle for minority rights is one, and you can't separate out one group and think you can get away with it. HON. M. SMITH: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members of the committee? Mr . Malinowski. MR. D. MALINOWSKI : Yes, I would like to ask, do you believe if this resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act would be passed, do you think it will help other minority groups in Manitoba? MR. J. COCHRANE: I think because it represents a victory over what - I don't like the term - the backlash, the feeling of English first, we're the greatest. I think the passage of this bill will represent a victory in that sense and could make the way easier for other groups to defend their own rights. Putting it the other way, of course, a defeat against this bill, particularly in view of some of the racist views that have been brought forward out of this would mean a very serious setback for the rights of minorities. MR. D. MALI NOWSKI: Thank you. I

Monday, 26 September, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members? Mr. Kovnats. MR. A. KOVNATS: Une qu estion. Pouvez-vous presenter votre discours en fran<;:ais? MR. J. COCHRANE: Non, mon fran<;:ais est tres mauvais. MR. A. KOVNATS: Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Seeing none, Mr . Cochrane thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. MR. J. COCHRANE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Brian Lang, please; Mr . Lang. Mr . Robert Dubois. Mr. Dubois, I see from your brief it is in French, will you be presenting it in French? MR. R. DUBOIS: Yes, it will be. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Would you mind the Committee's indulgence for a few minutes then, while we allow members to place the receivers on, and also to offer them to the audience? MR. R. DUBOIS: Certainly not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, the technician beside the simultaneous translation booth has receivers, which you can sign out so you can follow the translation of Mr . Dubois's brief or any other French bri efs which may be pr esented today. If you don't have them now, you may sign them out. The committee will take a short recess. (SHORT RECESS) MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all members again to please take their seats.

Please proceed. MR. R. DUBOIS: Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I appr eciate very much this opportunity today to ma ke my presentation in French to a Commit tee of the Leg islature. Somebody ma de reference here of their ancestry and their arrival in Canada, I would like to mention, at this point, that I am very proud of the fact that the Dubois family first came upon the shores of Canada in 16 52, and that in 1980, 400 out of the 650 of us celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the arrival of first Dubois in Manitoba.

Let me say, at this point, that there were many Polish, Ukrainian, French, English, Greek, all sorts at this 100th Anniversary of the Dubois. Et ma intenant, c'est dans l'echo des pa roles prononc ees par mes collegue s du conseil d'administration de la Societe franco-manitobaine que je viens aujourd'hui vous livrer quelques mots. De prime abord, l'on voudrait conclure que tout a ete dit Toutefois, comment peut-on epuiser I' expression de la conviction interieure d'une communaute dont la volonte et le desir de faire reconnaitre ses dr oits se 709 cristallisent en une veritable qualite de la condition humaine.

M. le president, un courant revendicateur coule a I' horizon. Ce courant laisse voir que la Societe franco manitobaine n'est pas seule a vouloir voir respecter !'entente conclue le 17 mai dernier. En verite, le meme desir se manifeste de plus en plus au sein de la com muna ute francophone au Mani toba. D'ailleurs, comment plus vivace peut etre ce desir qu'apres plus de 90 ans d'injustice. Ainsi va la realite intrinseque d'une vraie communaute. Des gens qui s'unissent pour faire valoir leurs interets et desirs communs.

Quoi de plus prometteur pour l'avenir que des groupes aussi divers et multiples qui s'efforcent a teinter de leur couleur, la toile socioculturelle du Manitoba futur. Et ce Manitoba futur, que nous reserve-t-il? Si l'on en croit les propos de l'ecrivain futurologue, Alvin Toffler, le Manitoba sera fa<;:onner par les effets de la troisieme vague. De la fin de l'age industrial, nous passerons a l'ere d'une societe qui se demassifie. Une societe qui se demassifie accordera une plus grande importance et un plus grand role a ses minorites, groupes multiples qui la composent.

Mais la ou Toffler voit dans l'avenir une pla ce preponderante pour les nombr euses minorites du monde, c'est dans la prome sse d'une civilisa tion mieux adap tee aux prob lemes, aux ressources et aux techniques du siecle prochain. Nous parlons d'une societe a la fine pointe de la technologie et de !'innovation sociale, societe axee sur l'individu et les minorites. Certains craignent que cette recherche de la diversite sociale soit le debut de la fragmentation et de la balcanisation de notre societe.

Ce sont la des croyances naives de ceux qui se portent obstinement defenseurs de la civilisation du passe et qui voient les desirs des minorites comme etant de l'egoisme mena<;:ant. Mais Toffler ne tarda pas a faire le point et je cite: "La punacite grand issante des minorites est le reflet entre autres chases des imperatifs inherents a un nouveau systeme de production dont !'existence meme recquiert une societe beaucoup plus variee, plus coloree, plus ouverte et plus disparate que toutes celles que l'on a connues par le passe," dit-il.

La troisieme vague donnera done lieu a la diversite d'ou une evolution sociale et une nouvelle democratie du 21e siecle reposant sur les minorites. Mais I' evolution sociale est presentement bloquee par ce my1he qui veut qu'une diversite croissante agg rave automatic;uement les conflits dans la societe. Cela est faut et Toffler veut faire comprendre que sous reserves d'amenagements sociaux adequats que permettront les ressources et les techniques du siecle prochain la diversite peut etre garante d'une civilisation paisible et stable. Cessans ce jeu d'accusations d'egoismes envers les minorites qui se manifestent.

Cessans cette jalousie aveugle nourrie par le statu quo d'une ancienne civilisation revalue. Toffler poursuit la discussion comme suit, et je cite: "La solution reside dans la mise en place de nouveaux dispositifs creatifs et dynamiques pren ant la diversite en comp te et la legitimant d'institutions nouvelles aptes a reagir au Desiderata, changeant des minorites fluctuantes qui ne cessent de se multiplier." L'auteur que nous citons serait certes le premier a condamner le plebiscite sur les droits d'une minorite que se propose de tenir la ville de Winnipeg.

Pour le futurologue qui a acquis une perception reflechie de l'avenir, le vote et la recherche d'une

Monday, 26 September, 1983 nationalite n'est qu'un ceremonial archaique elabore par des prim itifs en mal de communication. Un plebiscite sur les droits constitutionnels d'une minorite est done une triste regression dans une societe qui s'acharne a contrecarrer son evolution naturelle. Pourtant les conjonctures actuelles creees par les bril lantes innovations techniques et la conscience collective aug mentee du 21 e siecle donn eront progressivement lieu a cette nouvelle civilisation.

Les individus qui composeront cette nouvelle civilisation doivent done s'efforcer des maintenant a moderniser le systeme dans son integralite, afin de renforcir le roles des differentes minorites. Ces minorites devront meme etre encou ragees a gerer davantage leur s propres affaires et d'en definir les buts a long terme. Selon Toffler, cela pourra creer chez certains grou pes un sens de la communaute et de l'identite, tout en soula geant des organ isme s gouvernementaux surcharges d'une tache nullement indispensable.

Mais si nous avons voulu aujourd'hui vous parler de l'avenir, M. le president, c'est parce que nous croyons que !'entente conclue le 17 mai atteindra sa valeur ultime dans le contexte de notre societe manitobaine du futur. Nous croyons, M. le president, que cette entente tissee a partir de la riche realite historique du Manitoba reserve l'epanouissement integrale des ces effets pour les generations qui nous suivront dans la societe de I' avenir. Par surcroit, cette entente qui a la faveur de l'histoire et de l'avenir de cette province est juste et equitable pour la population entiere.

Elle fut negociee autour d'un principe de base auquel nous attribuons une importance qu'autrui ne pourra jamais deloger de nos plus lermes convictions interieures. Ce principe de base, M. le president, est celui qui dicte que les langues officielles du Manitoba sont le fran<;:ais et l'anglais. Ces memes convictions interieures nous assurent que ce principe est un elan porteur de la tolerance et du respect, qualites dont voudra certes s'emparer l'avenir de cette province. Ainsi, le Manitoba sera le precurseur d'une transformation sociale qui attirera la jalousie de tous les coins de ce pays. Merci. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Dubois. Questions for

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-pe37
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf pe37.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c4de7caa47366122a280365b29c425b272c1b657

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