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. 53- 7:30p.m., MONDAY, 3 October, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Provmce or Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Sieve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOUR LAY, D.M. {Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMP HILL, 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.Yic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Cons tituency Ste.

Rose Springfi eld Thompson La Verend rye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood 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 Morr is Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Monday, 3 October, 1983 TIME - 7:30 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg CHAIRMAN - Mr. Andy Anstett {Springfield) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Mackling and Storie Messrs. Anstett, Ashton, Brown, Graham, Harapiak, Lecuyer, Nordman, Scott; Mrs. Oleson WITNESSES: Mrs. Friesen, Private Citizen Mrs. B. Hoist, Private Citizen Ms. Beryl Kirk, Private Citizen Ms. Sandra Oleson, Private Citizen Ms. Judy Flynn, Private Citizen Ms. Ruth Rannie, Private Citizen Mr .

Andr e Frechette, Ass ociation des professeurs du college un iversitaire de St. Boniface Ms. Linda Archer, Private Citizen Ms. Juli ette Blais, Private Citizen Dr. Rey Pagtakhan, National Chairman United Council of Filipino Assoc iation in Cana da ; Advisor, Phillipine Association of Manitoba MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. We have a quorum. Mrs. Friesen, please. MRS. FRIESEN: Good evening, gentlemen, members of the legislative committee. lt gives me great pleasure that we still have this opportunity for the common people to come before you and lay out their dreams and their fears. I have come tonight, not in praise of Caesar, but hopefully to bury him. Much has been said in the past few months regarding rights and justice. Mr. Anstett, are you listening? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. FRIESEN: Thank you.

We have given freely of our time in listening to arguments given here by people from all walks of life, from the Alliance Quebec, from Mr. Letourneau, and I wonder, would we be received as courteously in his province as they were here. I'm wondering. I have concerns. Middle Canada has really di ctated to Western Cana d ians sinc e before Confederation re trade and then within a federal state the trade. We have operated under a protectionist system while they are receiving our raw materials at less than world market prices.

I have always felt this to be greatly unjust, but then westerners have been scoffed at and continue and these people in the east still continue to enjoy these privileges, never never even giving consideration to changes. Yet the Federal Liberal Quebecers were here full force telling the people of Manitoba to restore rights and justice to some Manitobans. This is always a one-way street. In 1971, Pierre Trudeau said: "You cannot legislate language into importance." If only he had heeded his own words and advice.

If only he had let each language free flow among the masses without any political interference, we would have been spared these many years of harangue over language and culture. This one individual will have to bear the responsibility in history for the horrendous di visiveness we are experiencing here in Manitoba today. He has broken down the traditional foundations of authority and substituted new ones. Please allow me to read a paragraph out of the book "Trudeau's Canada -Truth and Consequences," by political analyst, Phillip Bohm.

The Prime Min ister has succeeded in separating Christianity from politics only to reintroduce his own new public religion -social radicalism. For radicals, politics functions as a new religion. Trudeau wants to achieve through politics what is in reality possible only through Christianity, the making of a new man and a new society. For Trudeau the politicized workers are the real upholders of "spiritual values." He has politicized cultural values, elevating them to a spiritual level. That has been gleaned from one of his books.

Cultur al values are spiritual when they reach the level of universal and human values rather than national and material. lt seems that the UNE SCO's philosophy of scientific humanism is Trudeau's true public religion and it is in this light that he envisioned the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. The consequences of this radical shift in authority will have very far-reaching effects. This social radicalism has confused and divided us, put fear into our hearts.

His statement, "Federalism must be welcomed as a valuable tool from which the seed of radicalism can spread ." This seems to be coming into effect here in Manitoba right now. Through the office of the Secretary of State, millions of tax dollars and certain people are being used to spread this evil seed. In 1968, when asked why he changed his political philosophy from the time when he edited the magazine "Cite Libre" in which he was a severe critic of the Liberal Party, he replied, "There's a mistake here. Just because the Liberal Party has changed, its philosophy hasn't changed.

You shouldn't assume that I have changed mine. No party, no matter how venerable and 1076

Monday, 3 October, 1983 old and structured, and bossed by machines and imbued in history, no party can really escape the control of a group of people who want to get in there and decide to control it. We did this. We pulled the ground out from under them." Those words were spoken by the man who is still the Prime Min ister of this country tod ay. In 1981 he stated, "We've got all the aces. We've got the right of disallowance, declaratory power under peace, order and good government . We have the entrenchment of both official languages, which can never be removed.

We've got French in the education system in every English province." This, of course, fits into his grand design. Statements such as these denote not an attitude of co-operative democratic feder alism, but rather dictatoriaL He and his group have all the aces and the masses. We Canadians are but pawns in his scheme. One wonders, has the man not learned from histo ry, recent history in Europe in the 1930's? This then brings me to what I feel is happening in Manitoba now. I see a resembl ance in the attitude in the Attorney-General of Manitoba.

This government was not given a mandate by the people of this province to amend the Constitution of 1980, yet Mr . Penner has taken the attitud e, together with the Prime Min ister, that he kno ws what is best for Manitobans. He made a secret deal with Serge Joyal and Serge Joyal has said publicly that he worked on it, with someone from the New Brunswick Government, with 576 members of the SFM, Roger Bilodeau, Alliance Queb ec and another group. But not with the people that this legislation would eventually affect. We, the people of Mani toba, are not to know what th is deal is until it is law and entrenched law.

Mr. Penner, in my view, has played a dirty trick on the people of Manitoba by being so secretive, or maybe Mr . Penner also is playing games, together the Pete (sic) and Penner game, dividing the masses, French against the English and all us non-phones in the middle. Isn't that how communism works to achieve their goals? Mr . Penner is, after all, a very relatively recent member of the New Democratic Party , and he has stated publicly on July 14th that he cares not a hoot if he is defeated in the next election. I wonder, people wond er, did he expect to be finished the job he was doing for Trudeau and company?

Was he then able to go on to his rewards? Then one has to wonder what rewards await him, but time always tells. This government has succeeded in tearing the social fabric of this province apart, and it will take a very long time to heaL As we all kn ow, and we've been told this many times over the last few weeks, Ma nitoba is a province of minorities. We are not an 9Xtension of Upper and Lower Canada. We are unique. We have different origins, a different ethnic mix, a different history. We have different tho ught processes and different ways of reacting.

This myth of two founding peoples to me is ju st that, a myth. This two nations concept hurts me to the core, because it negates all the blood, sweat and tears my ancestors suffered in the opening up of this province. I share the view of million of Canadians, of Western Canadians anyway, that at least Western Canada is not founded by Francophones or Anglophones or any other kind of phones, but by all pioneers who came to sett le here. The explorers and fur tr aders were hardly here to settle and stay, but rather to explore and exploit the fur-bearing animals and maybe even the Native peoples.

Over the years, the mi norities, be th ey Icel andi c, Ukrainian, Polish, the gamut, to name but a few, have contributed greatly to the development of Manitoba. The Mennoni tes came to Manitoba only four years after its incorporation as a separate province. They were the first large group of immigrant sett lers from the European continent who added to Manitoba's then smal l number of white res iden ts. In 18 81, th ey represented about 13 percent of Manitoba's total population. The Mennoni tes of Manitoba have played a significant role in the development of this province.

The Francophones must share this with all other pioneers, the opening up and building of this province. They seem to want to regress, but only to 18 70 and no further. Ma ybe perhaps we would have to give this province back, but to whom? The beaver, the buffalo? I would like to insert here ju st a little bit regarding another brief that was given here, with your permission, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: No object ion to what's included in your brief. MRS. FRIESEN: lt's mine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MRS. FRIESEN: Thank you.

We heard earlier when these hearings first began, a brief from a group of concerned Mennoni tes and I would like to give my view regarding that era. Like all other ethnic groups in North America, the Mennoni tes felt the effects of outside pressures, sub tle but persis te nt . Of much great importance than English schools, was the psychological attr action which the amenities of a prospering society exerted upon the suscept ible minds of the second generat ion of my people. To a thoughtful observer of conditions in the Manitoba settlements, the ultimate outc ome seemed quite inescapable.

Sooner or later the Mennoni tes would be absorbed into the general stream of Canadian life which, to some extent, has happened, but it happens to all minority groups as we live to gether in a great country. I am a product of ju st such acculturation having retained my mother tongue, Plattdeuts ch, my second lang uage, German and can, I hope, make myself under stood in English. No government, no government ever threatened my culture. Had Mr .

Reddig, who hails from Pennsylvania, I understand, grown up in Mani to ba, he would, I am certain, carry a different slant and view in his mind, but then he did say he represented 20 concerned Mennoni tes of which one seems to be a Mr . Regehr working in Mr . Pawley's office. I would like this committee to know that Mr . Reddig did not represent me, my immediate family nor my extended family. We are fourth generation Manitobans and our numbers by now are many. We do not believe any language or culture needs to be entrenched in any constitution.

Time does not stand still and a culture and language have to grow and evolve as time goes on. We cannot regress. 1t is physically impossible and if we feel strongly enough about our mother tongue, 1077

Monday, 3 October, 1983 we'll use it and it won't die, but my culture has been retai ned by living it. All these immigrants came to a country, a new world, which they were told was governed by a democratic parliam entary system, patterned aft er the Brit ish Common Law System, where Parliament is supreme. Here tr aditions and conventions would be developed. Laws changed as the province matured to meet the needs of the times. Surely now the descendants of these pioneers, surely, we should have a voice in the future of this province.

Mus t we all bow to the demands of one minority who cry for restoration of rights, entrenched rights, rights which will be special for one minority only? No mention is made of German rights entrenched. Is this equality for all? In 18 70 the population was largely Met is with roughly 1, 500 so-called whites, according to my history books. With all the changes in population and the laws made to fit th at time, hardly pertain tod ay, ju st like seat belt legislation may no longer pertain in 2083. This has all changed now.

The new Constit ution Act of 1982 has changed Canada's system from the British Common Law system to the French Civil Code system, where ju dges make th e decisions, as oppo sed to th e suprema cy of Parliament. I come then to this piece of information that was sent to me. This extremely poor and, in my view, bad piece of legislation fost ered by Mr . Penner brings back all the racial unrest of the old world. This new world was to spell equality for all. Statements like, "We won't be led by WASPS," by Myron Spolsky from the Globe and Mail, and "The day of the rule by the pure WASP is over.

Wh at's happened is tha t th ese et hni c communities were sold a bill of goods in 19 16 , and got screwed jus t as we did." These words were spoken to a Globe and Mail reporter, Richard Cleroux (phonetic) by none other than a community leader in our midst. He is present ly the Vice President and lawyer for the SFM, Treasurer for the Festival du Voyageur, a real community leader. Who, I ask, incites racism? Statements such as these by a community leader in an organization or organizations th at are, incidentally, both heavily funded by our tax dollars are ju st unforgivably divisive.

Myon Spols ky, I heard this afternoon, is the Treasurer for Mani toba 23. lt hurts when people who are leaders in the community make such racist statements, and then expect us to believe in their cause. The Official Languages Act of 1969 was passed in Parliament, and the Lib erals of that day preached to help keep Qu ebec in Canada. I wond er, do th e Franc ophone Queb ecers really want out of Confedera tion, or do they aspire to take total control of this country? Seemin gly, since 1969, things were not moving quickly enough regarding implementation of the French language.

Serge Jo yal sta ted, "The poli cy of increased assistance to Francophone minorities must be based mainly on a cultural policy, which is tr agically lacking at this ti me," taken from the Commons debates of October 19, 1976. So there we are. Federal assistance has flown freely ever since. For the past five years, the Francophone population here in Mani toba have received millions of tax dollars, while other minorities are hardly recognized.

In order to rectify this to some extent and to offset the appe arance of favorit ism, we now have an organization called MAPAL, Manitoba Association for the Preservation of Ancestral Languages. I understand the Sec retary of State is encouraging and funding these groups in Canada . I rep eat , th is is to offset th e appearance of favoritism to one minority, but at the same time it is a way to trap the unwary in the subsid iary enterprises which are part of the grand design. Instead of fostering unity, these ethnic groups are set up to foment Canadianism.

Many of th ese people are not even aware of how they are being led astray by these act ivists. These so-called leaders are elevat ing thems elves to the level of freedom fighters, saying heritage education is our right . How sad, how sad! The shallow thi nkers looked and found an issue to exploit . Baruch Rand, as Chairman of the MAP AL Convention held on September 24th in the University of Winnipeg, stated and he publicly st ated this, "We cannot adopt th e English cultur e. We are wha t we are." What government, I ask, has ever asked us to adopt the English culture? In Mani toba, we are a mixed breed, Canadian.

Rand claims his roots are in mid-Europe and, since he has lived in Manitoba for a very short time, may that be so for him. But for us people who are third and fourth generation Manitobans, we cannot be anything but Cana d ian, no matter wha t new Manitobans preach. The SFM are asking all these minority groups for support in convincing you, the legislators, to ram through Penner's proposal for entrench ment. Yes. lt seems to me that the radical group of Francophones are not so much concerned with fostering their own language as they are obsessed with living up to the old dream of yesteryear.

In the Man ifesto of a Vanishing People, Page 29, I read, "Since the revenge of the cradle is now a thing of the past and the birth rate is approximately the same for all ethnic groups, the only way to increase the Francophone population is to rely on immigration." Reading on to Page 65 in that same book, I find, "Another thre at to the cultural identity and activity of the Francophones outside of Quebec is the concept of Canada as a bilingual, but multicultural count ry.

This federal policy which has many followers among the Provincial Governments pushes us too easily and subtly to the background, to the same level as any other ethnic minority." Yet, toda y, these self-same Francophones are asking the support of all other ethnic groups. I really wonder how many of the other ethnics are aware that they are being used . Will we never learn from history? Are we really present ly interested only in heritage?

History tells us that at a Lib eral Party Convention in Mani toba on March 26, 19 14, the Li berals of the day demanded national schools, obligatory te aching of English in all public schools and compulsory school attendance. Maybe experience and history had taught them that the Laurier-Greenway compromise of 18 97 did not really work that well after Manitoba had a great influx of people from various European countries.

The Department of Education of that day struggled very hard to follow the laws, but the situation eventually ended up in linguistic chaos in the schools of Manitoba, hence the act of government in 1916 . In an editorial of May 18, 1920, the Winnipeg Free Press with great clarity , brough t to the fore th e reasoning behind that step. The writer, perhaps John Defoe hims elf, declared, "State schools were the 1078

Monday, 3 October, 1983 symbols of a new freed om. If every ethnic group had retained school autonomy, all tongues and dialects of Europe would be perpetuated here." One has to ask oneself, would we have the Mani toba we have today had such action not been taken in 1916 ? How, I ask you, would we all be commu nicatin g here to day if in 1916 some order had not been created regarding education in this province?

I, for one, cannot thank those far-sighted politicians of that era enough for doing what they did; I never lost any oppor tunities because I attended a public school, rather than a private school; my mother tongue is not lost, and there was provision in The Manitoba School Act for public schools to teach a se cond language, and also for religious instruction. So the second language was not lost, all Manitobans had these rights given in The Manitoba School Act of that day, and I am living proof of that, th at's how I learned my second language, German. Mul ticulturalism is the most divisive idea put forth.

My ethnic heritage is as sacred as my personal ident ity, and the state has no busine ss aiding and abett ing it. We must de-hyphenate, rather than de-Canadianize ourselves. To do so can only be Canada's gain. If one's desire to retain a culture and language is strong enough, and this really emanates from a family, it survives without legislation or any entrenc hment. I would like to say just a few words about the sheet which was sent to me by the Government of Manitoba, under the signature of Roland Penner. One wonders, who was the author of this work of art? The information is certainly less than honest . Mr .

Penner states that his proposal is a "Made -in-Ma nitob a solut ion." This statement conflicts with what the Premier stated in the Legislat ure on Tuesday, July 12, 1983. He stated that there are 7 parties involved in this proposal; Alliance Quebe c and New Bru nswick Government are not Manitobans are they? There will be no change in the language of work within the Civil Service. News out from Ottawa regarding the Affirmative Action Program states differently. Once a province becomes officially bilingual things will ch ange, as announced on June 27, 1983 in Ottawa.

The Affirmative Action Program will presently apply only to Federal Government and departments as they are now, but guess who will push for it to apply to private comp anies and all other governments and co rporations? You guessed it, Serge Joyal. This information I have gleaned from the Toronto Sun and the Winnipeg Free Press. Perhaps Mr . Penner is not aware of Bill C-398 proposed by Serge Joyal. I'm sorry Mr . Penner is not here because I have an excellent quote for him. 400 hundred-odd years ago Bishop John Boyle facetiously counselled, "Though it be a foul great lie, set upon it a good face." Even there Mr .

Penner has failed. This government is telling me that this f1asco that you are promotin g is unity in this province. Do you really expect the people of Manitoba to have any tr ust left in this government after such lies have been perpetrated on us? The people of Manitoba are just sick and tir ed of being treated like ignorant lemmings by these open­ government politicians and bureaucrats. The members of the government sitting on this committee should think very carefully about the impact their decision will have on this province and, indeed, on all of Western Canada.

You have to ask yourself, should one in your midst be making secret deals, seemingly to me, to wards his own elevation in this power play? Please remember, Western Canada is made up of minorities; should one be given spec ial stat us th at all ot hers canno t constitutionally enjoy? Where, I ask you, is equality? Please allow me to make a few recomm endati ons which, to me and a host of my friends and family, seem the only logical way to go for our province. The reality in 19 83 is th a t Manitoba is peopled by minority groups; English now is the one uniting language for all of us.

In giving special status to one minor minority group you are elevating that group to a position with privileges all others cannot enjoy. Maybe, at this point in the history of our count ry, it is time that Western Canadians begin faci ng reality and to decide to take their own destiny into their own hands. Maybe middle Canada has mothered us long enough; we cannot regress, but must plan for the future.

So I urge you, let the Bilodeau case rest ; put forth a platform asking the people of Manitoba if, indeed, they want two entrenched languages to be used in this province at all times forever and ever; call an election on that one issue, and then let the people democratically decide, and then we must all live by that decision. Or, I have an alternative for you.

Be bold, rewrite Se ction 23 of The Manitoba Act to reflect the reality of today; one official language, English, with privileges for all minorities to pursue and live in their own languages and cultures in their homes, their churches, and their private club s without government aid and abetting, not entrenched. Ma ybe, just maybe, then we can begin to build and to live peacefully to gether all our 32-odd, 40-odd minorities. Thank you for the opportu nity of hearing me out and letting me speak to you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mrs. Friesen. Questions for Mrs. Friesen from members of the committee? Mr . Brown. MR.

A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Mr s. Friesen, you mention that the Mennoni tes had come to Manitoba four years after 18 70, and that there were now fourth generation Mennoni tes living in Manitoba. I would expect, from what you're saying is that you would possibly be third generation yourself? MRS. FRIESEN: I am a fourth generation, my children are fifth. MR. A. BROWN: They're fifth. Very good. Mr s.

Friesen you seem to be promoting one language very strongly in Manitoba, namely, the English language as the one common language of communication; do you feel that within your group that there still is a strong desire to maintain the heritage of the Menn onites, namely, the German language? MRS. FRIESEN: Well, you ask me, in my group, and I have to speak only for my group because I know that in some areas it is stronger than in ours. We maintain our language at home, we speak our heritage language at home. My children speak German, they also speak French, but this is the Canadian mosaic.

Our culture isn't lost, we live our culture, and that is how my children have been brought up and they will carry on, if they 1079

Monday, 3 October, 1983 so desire. But that is their decision, we shouldn' t make decisions for them, they have their own lives to lead and their own decisions to make. MR. A. BROWN: Mrs. Friesen, did you have a great concern when the rights of the 1870 agreement were installed in 1980, and that French, again, was recognized with whatever rights had been embodied in the 1870 agreement, were you really concerned about it at that particular time? MRS. FRIESEN: I'm not sure I unde rstand the question. In 1980? MR. A. BROWN: That's right. 1979 the ruling came down on the Forest case, in 1980 then ... MRS.

FRIESEN: Well, I wondered what was going to happen. If activists get busy in the province it could mushroom. MR. A. BRO WN: When did you really become concerned as to how far this was going to go, or when did you really become concerned as far as the other language, like French? MRS. FRIESEN: In 1969. MR. A. BROWN: 1969. What was the reason for that at that particular ti me, could you tell me? MRS. FRIESEN: Well, I suppose, we had fears th at what is happening now would happen.

As far as I was concerned I was getting along with my neighbours and I have a lot of French-speaking neighbours; but our uniting language -they speak their language at home, we speak ours at home -but our uniting language is English. MR. A. BROWN: You me ntioned tha t you we re concerned about two languages being entrenched in Manitoba. Mrs. Friesen, do you realize that we are talking only about one language being entrenched, th at the English language, as such, has not been entrenched in Mani toba , we are only talking about one language being entrenched. Is that a concern of yours? MRS.

FRIESEN: The language that I would like to see entrenched is English. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. A. BROWN: You said that you were cvmcerned, and you mentioned this evil seed that was promoted by the government, could you explain that statement and give us ju st a little bit more background as to what you really see as the evil seed? MRS. FRIESEN: I should have brought all my books along.

When I read you this bit about the Prime Min ister separat ing Christianity from politics only to reintroduce his new public religion, I have great apprehensions about this sort of th ing happening in this country, and we have agitators in our midst. What are they agitating for? Many people are afraid of what's happening in this country; it used to be a fairly free and open country. I am not sure that I can answer your question because I am not quite aware of what exactly is happening. MR. A. BROWN: Those are the questions I had of Mr . Friesen. Thank you for your presentation. MR. S. ASHTON: Than k you, Mr .

Chair man. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that you feel we should have one language in Mani to ba, only English, because that is the majority language. MRS. FRIESEN: That's right. MR. S. ASHTON: Now, looking at it historically then, wouldn' t you have said in 1870 then, that the language of Manitoba should have been French because the majority of people spoke French? How do you relate MRS. FRIESEN: I am not sure where you find in history books that the majority spoke French. The majority were Native people, all the various Indi an tri bes and they didn' t speak French, did they? MR. S.

ASHTON: Well th e majo rity wa s Nati ve, including Metis , which spoke French. MRS. FRIESEN: Not all. MR. S. ASHTON: The census did show that the majority spoke French. Don't you feel then that that reasoning would be somewhat inconsistent? If you are saying that we should speak the majority language, simply because it is the majority, shouldn't we originally have been a French province? MRS. FRIESEN: But I am not regressing to 1870, this is 1983, thin gs have changed, people have come here from all parts of the world . . . MR. S. ASHTON: I realize that things have changed MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr .

Ashton would you let Mrs. Friesen finish here answer please? Mrs. Friesen. MRS. FRIESEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. lt may have pertained at th at time. What were the languages of Europe under the Crusades? Those languages haven't stayed either, they have evolved into what is necessary at the time. MR. S. ASHTON: So, according to that, you feel that Mani toba should be English only, and say, Quebec because the majority is French should be Frenchmen? MRS.

FRIESEN: I am in Manitoba, I will never presume to make decisions for Quebec, but I am, as I have said, a fourth generation Mani tobans and I feel very strong ly , this is my home. 1080

Monday, 3 October, 1983 MR. S. ASHTON: I wasn't asking you to make a decision, I am just trying to place it in how you view it in the Canadian context. The other question I have, then, is some people have suggested that there should be French services, but that they shouldn' t be entrenched; some people have suggested the re should be French services, and that they should be entrenched; and someone said there should be no services. Where would you put your bottom line at, where do you feel that you stand, are you in favour of one the other of those combinations? MRS.

FRIESEN: I am not in favour of entrenchment of any language. Services in my mun icipality, in the municipal office, have been served as long as I have been in that area, for 26 years, they have gotten their French services. When I lived in my home town, the services there were given in German or Plattdeutsch . These services, because they were necessary, they have been provided. MR. S. ASHTON: Do you feel, for example, that the Legislature should tr anslate statutes into French, or should provice government service in French? MRS.

FRIESEN: I guess the law from Ottawa dictates that you have to tr anslate, so be it, tr anslate. MR. S. ASHTON: So you are not against French services? MRS. FRIESEN: The French services were given, Mr . Lyon's Government provided French services. MR. S. ASHTON: That's all I'm asking, whether you would were against French. MRS. FRIESEN: Thank you. HON. J. STORIE: Jus t one question for clarifica tion. In your brief you suggested that you live in harmony with y_our French-speaking neighbours, and that English was the unifying language . . . MRS. FRIESEN: That's right. HON. J.

STORIE: I gather that you are concerned, in some way, that this amendment is somehow going to interfere with that. Could you explain how . . . MRS. FRIESEN: I just feel that that amendment, if you entrench that, gives those people a right that I cannot enjoy because I am not a "phone" of any kind. HON. J. STORIE: I think tha t the righ t , if it is entrenched, does give you the right to receive services in French if you wish to have them in French. MRS. FRIESEN: But I don' t need them in French, would need them in Plattdeutsch or German. HON. J.

STORIE: Then tha t contradicts what you said earlier, th at that gives them rights that you wouldn' t have. 1081 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. lt is not up to you to debate. Do you have a question? HON. J. STORIE: Is that what you said? MRS. FRIESEN: I'm sorry, I didn' t catch what you were trying to tell me. HON. J. STORIE: I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, and I was simply trying to clarify whether you had actually, in fact, suggested that another group would be receiving a service which you couldn't receive.

Was that what you had said, that this ent renchment would mean that another group could receive a service that you couldn't receive? MRS. FRIESEN: A cons ti tu ti onal service, constitutionally entrenched. There's a big difference between "service" and "constitutionally entrenched services." HON. J. STORIE: So, you're saying that you would not be able to receive that service? MRS. FRIESEN: Well, I couldn't use it because German would not be entrenched constitutionally, and that would be my language of communication, other than English. HON. J. STORIE: That' s fine, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mrs. Friesen from mem bers of the committee? Seeing none, Mrs. Friesen thank you very much for your presentation this evening. Mrs. B. Hoist. MRS. B. HOLST: Mr . Chairman, members of the Legislative Commi ttee, fi rst I wish to express my admir ation for the many good people who have studied in depth the proposed amend ment to

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act and who have made their concerns public. These people represent a wide range on the political spectrum and so their combined voices have moved this issue across party lines; out of the political arena, to be examined honestly for the total effect upon all the people of this province. In particular, I commend the many reeves and mayors of the rural municipalities, whose concerns have been expressed concisely and with clarity. I note the names of these reeves and mayors, and they reflect an ethnic, grass-roots mix of this province.

They reflect a regional, cultural structure, a splendid mosaic of ethnic peoples, not cemented together by a British culture, but bonded to gether only by a common tool of communicati on, the English language, an English language now embellished by distinctive Canadian nuances. I must state, categorically, that the word ing of the jJropo sed amendment to

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act is most obviously of an ambiguous meaning in several areas. Indeed, if one gave even a mutton recipe to one's neighbour using measures and methods in similar loose fashion, one's neighbour would end up with a disaster. Specifically, the areas of concern in this proposed amendment, to me, are:

Monday, 3 October, 1983 23. 1 which has an umb rella effect over the entire amendment and could be interpreted by the courts in such a manner as to invalidate the stated intention of limited bilingualism. 23.8 which states, anyone whose rights under

Section 23. 7 have been inf ring ed , et c., cons titu tes an infringement, remembering that a judge must, or should, base his decision on the rule of the law, not on common sense or on what is necessary or unnecessary, according to his personal feelings. 23.7(b), the term "significant dema nd". I believe the B and B Comm ission suggested 15 percent as a figure for a regional bilingualism significant demand, but that was never adhered to. This term has yet to be defined in The Official Langua ges Act.

Indeed, there are many proposed amendments to The Official Languages Act that would give The Official Langua ges Act tremendous powers, un believable powers, and the date for enacting these amendments is sug gested as Dec emb er 31, 19 83, which coincidentally, happens to be the suggested deadline for this provincial amendment. Also, in relation to this term "significant demand", would the method used to produce this significant demand be open to scrutiny by the judge? Addr essing legitimate needs is one thing; responding to organized demand is another.

I'm afraid I find this proposed amendment a can of worms creating chaos if entrenched. And the clause 23. 1 could create unlimited bilingualism, entrenched or unentrenched. So anyone who wants to short-cut the negotiations between Mr. Bilodeau and the Supreme Court by advocating this disaster is leading Manitobans, not just down the garden path, but into the bramble patch. A short cut is usually the quickest way to some place you weren't going. The Georges Forest case resurrected the 18 70 Manitoba Act. lt is now in place. These minority rights have been restored.

As well, services in French, which exis ted to some degr ee sinc e 18 90, have been voluntarily available where needed. There was no quarrel with this, it was accepted by the people, the majority of people of this province. We are now informed the Provincial Government is considering a strange settlement. They say, accept the propo sed amendment to the Constitu tion, and you only have to translate 400 rather than 4,000 laws into French. Some settlement! And the people of Manitoba are told that should Mr.

Bilodeau go to the Su preme Court, why the Supr eme Court might quite possibly rule all the laws of Manitoba invalid. I would rather gamble on the 1 percent chance the Supr eme Court ruling would invalidate laws than impose this amendment on the people of Manitoba. I feel to impo se this amendment would be unconstitutional to the majority. Yes, minority rights should be protected. I feel this protection is already in place. To go further would impose upon majority rights. Freed om must not be allowed to be used to destroy the freedoms of others. That is why we now must consider a plebiscite.

A plebiscite is merely an opportunity for the public to express their view by secret ballot, and it is probably the only time in Canada on this subj ect. it is not binding; it is only an expression to the Government of the Day. lt is not an expression against minority rights, because the 18 70 Manitoba Act is already in place in this province and as well the services are in place and have been given. The wording of the plebiscite, as stated, is exactly what the Provincial Government itself is sup posed to be contemplating.

But it is because the public feel the Provincial Government have made a deal with the Federal Government and are not contemplating, or even considering this direct and proper legal route to the Supreme Court that they, the people, demand a voice. This plebiscite is not divisive; this province is not divided French-speaking against English-speaking; it is against Federal Government intervention. Canadians know it is the Bobsey Twins of bigoted bilingualism, Trudeau and Levesque, who have created and unfolded an insane artificial cultural universe upon us.

A group called Manitoba 23 put out an information package which I read in order to understand their viewpoint. I do not have time to go into their entire package except to say, I question their historical facts as stated. For example, I quote: "The Quebec Act adopted by the British Parliament in 1774 also widely viewed as Canada's fi rst Cons titution, officially recognized French-language rights for the colony of Canada." I must remind you that the Queb ec Act restored French law, invested priests with authority to levy dues, provided that the province be ruled by a Governor and council.

The restoration of this French law applied only to 82 parishes in existence in Quebec and not to the province as a whole, and there was no mention of any language rights in this act. In all the major documents of Canadian history, the Treaty of Paris, 1763, the Royal Proclamation following it, The Quebec Act, 1774, The Constitution Act, 179 1, The Act of Union, 18 40, The BNA Act, 18 67, only the latter , The BNA Act, make s reference to French language rights. Specifically

Section 13 3 of The BNA Act stated a limited use, a limited use, of the French language in the House of Parliament, the Legislature of the Province of Queb ec and the federal courts. I mention this only to point out the legal intent of the Constitution of Canada, because it would appear that The Official Languages Act of 1969 changed this Constitution by an unconstitutional method. I would like to quote from John Diefenbaker's book, "Those Things We Treasure." He states, I voted against the languages bill and was one of 17 MP 's to do so.

I voted contrary to my party's view because I believed that what was being done was to amend the Constitution by statute. I asked the government to submit the questions to the Supr eme Court of Canada, as to whether or not what was being done was constitutional, and whether the provincial statutory amendment was or was not a constitutional amendment. The government refused, contending that it had no doubt the piopo sed legislation was legal, and that what was being done was not a constitutional amendment. lt was stated by the Mini ster of Jus tic e that any Canadian could challenge its constitutionality.

I contended that such a view was an untenable one. The Honourable Joseph Thorsson, former Mini ster in the McK enzie -King government and subsequent President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, launched proceedings contending that what had been done was unla wfu l. The Federal Government, apparently fearing the result, successfully contended otherwise. it is true the majority of MP's voted for it, The Official Languages Act, and the 17 or so who voted against 1082

Monday, 3 October, 1983 it were booed. They were booed in the House of Commons. But the people of Canada showed the y, too, rejected institutional bilingualism by regis tering 63 against in a Gallup Poll done in 1976.

Perhaps they were aware that the 1965 statistics before The Official Languages Act, 19 65, publis hed by the B and B Commission stated that representation of Anglophones and Francophones in all categories of the public service at tha t ti me was 78.5 percent and 21 .5 percent respectively, a fairly accurate representation, without an imposed Official Languages Act . lt would now appear that the people were correct, because no one wants to be identified with the federal bilingualism program. Mr . Penner states in headlines, his pro posals are quite dif ferent from federal bilingualism, and Mr .

Pawley is quoted in the Winnipeg Sun, July 8, 1983, as saying, the federal bilingualism program has been such a flop that Canadians are gun­ shy about the word "bilingualism" . You bet! But it would also appear that the majority of federal MP 's are gun­ shy about criticizing federal bilingualism, and indeed, both the Li beral and NDP MP 's responded with ridicule to Bill C-666,

an act to amend The Official Languages Act and restore the merit principle to civil service when it was introduced by Dan Mc Kenzie. I do not wish to harass Mr . Desjardins -and he's not here to harass -but I want to gently chastise him for com ments he made as recorded in the Hansard July 28, 1983, in response, or in addressing this question. Mr . Desjard ins stated -he is considering prejudice -and he says, "How hard it is not even just for Francophones, but for the people that want to learn French in those total Immersion Schools.

Look at how hard it is to build these schools." I would like to state that as far as I can see in researching the Immersion Program within Canada, there has never been an edu cati onal program tha t has been so politically supported, so federally funded, than any in the history of this count ry. I would like to quote a few items from our own Winnipeg School Division No. 1, which gave the following cr iteria regarding French Im mersion. Consulta ti on should be arranged between board and staff and parents now involved in French Immersion Programs to determine desirable and acceptable accommodation.

A division plan must have the approval and support of the Frenc h Im mersion staff and cl ient s before proceeding with the development of the site or sites. The next step is that the school facilities planning council should then be organized for the schools that are chosen as potential immersion centres to deal with the possible redistribution of existing pupil populations and other considera tions. I would also like to state that in S')me cases where people have embraced a du al-track system, it has not been an an ti-Immersion or anti-French bias that has made them reconsider.

These are comments by a parent who had a first-hand experience in such a dual-tr ack school. He said, "I hope that all of you will look carefully at the situation at our school and urgently revaluate the sc hool poli cy of st rong ly-enforced lingu istic segregation. There is more to life th an becoming proficient in one or two languages.

If the school cannot encourage cultural harmony, then all the language skills in the world will have been wasted." He also goes on to state, "lt is a pity that in our zeal for fostering 1083 bilin gualism, we have lost our sense of balan ce, undermined excellent existing English programs, and have done a marvelous job in sewing the seeds of mistrust and dissen sion." I just have to point this out because I do beli eve that it is only accu rate to state th at th e funding and promotion of this program have been really quite excessive. - (Interjection) - I've just got a little bit more. I'm terribly sorry. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Carry on, no problem. MRS. B. HOLST: When the Su preme Court resurrected the 1870 Mani toba Act , it left many skeletons dangling in the cupboard. Gent lemen, these skeletons are the historical facts to be found in the archive's Hansard, the reasons the parliamentarians of that day changed the Constituti on. In 1890, the Legislatur e of the Day amended the 1870 act using the only legal tools available to them.

I am not saying I agreed with what they did but it becomes apparent they did indeed have reasons, that were not based on bigotry but based on the social reality of the day, the needs of the people. The reality of the creation of Manitoba is not the reality of the creation of Upper and Lower Canada. The grounds for the original 1870 Manitoba Act are not as firm as they could be; the refore, all the historical facts of the 1800s should be carefully examined if any extension of rights is even contem plated in 19 83. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Hoist. Questions for Mr s.

Hoist from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation, Mr s. Hoist. lvan Merritt , lvan Merritt, please; Luba A. Kwasn ey, Ms. Kwasney, please; Dr. Joe Slogan, Dr. Slogan, please; Beryl Kirk - (Interjection) - no, she's back, she's right behind you. MS. B. KIRK: Mr . Chairperson, I would like to add my commt�nts to the general debate, not that I feel I have anything original to add but to emphasize a position which I seem to feel is under-represented here.

I support the pr oposed resolut ion and would ur ge th e reinstatement of the French language to its rightful place in Mani toba, for both th e sake of th e Franc o­ Manitobans and for Canada as a whole. I'm a Canadian citizen of Norwegian and Scottish ancestry. When my ancestors came to Canada, they came to a country which had been founded by two races, the Frenc h and the Engl ish.

The fact was emphasized in the basic fibre of Conf ederat ion, but also more specifically in The Mani toba Act, which said at that time that either French or English may be used in the Legislature, the courts, and that the records, journals and statutes would be in both English and French. My family learned one of the official languages, but continued to celeb rate on holidays and other occasions the culture of their homeland; hence, the roots of the Canada of which I am a citizen, a bilingual country but also a multicultural count ry.

But the fact that my ancestors chose to learn English only or perhaps because they had only the opportu nity to learn English is the root of the problem we have toda y. After a period

Monday, 3 October, 1983 of time, the balance of Mani toba between the English and the French was distu rbed, and the English majority used their power to pass The Official Language Act, which struck down French as an official language in Manit oba, a gross exercise of majority power.

What I support here today is the original agreement made by the Government of Mani toba and the Franco­ Man itoban Society and the Government of Canada to redress this wrong, and I hope that you will not back down in the face of near-sighted and misguided public opinion, led as it is by some near-sighted, misguided and small-minded political leaders. I'd like to add ress some of those criticisms.

Fi rst, the issue of the constitutional entrenchment: lt seems to me that the entrenchment in the Constitution will prevent, if anything can, a repeat of the problem in the next century when some other set of small-minded persons decide to restrict the language rights. I, for one, would rather trust my rights and freedoms to the judic iary than to a Legislature which is the subject of political pressures and the need for re-election. I heard a point of view this morning, which seemed to imply that the negotia ted settlement to the problem is not the way to go, rather wait until the court order to redress.

That is a legalistic, philosophical argument, and not a linguistic one. I happen to believe that a negotiated settlement is the best way to go and I would like to present an analogy to the labour relations field which is often described as a microcosm of society as a whole, and it's a field in which I work as a third party neutral. The court challenge represents a formal grievance concerning the striking down of French by the majority. A grievance can go through to resolution in two steps, either to arbitration, a legally binding decision, or it can be solved by a solution worked out between the parties.

In this instance, the parties wisely chose not to go to arbitration, i.e., the Supr eme Court, but to negotiate the grievance in order to arrive at a solution that was in the best interest of all the parties. In labour relations, as in the society as a whole, a sett lement to the problem arrived at through negot iations and compromise is often the better one than one which is decided only on a legalistic level. For these reasons, I support the agreement you arrived at. lt shows courage and wisdom to work out an agreement than to simply leave it to the Supreme Court to dictate.

The plebiscite on this issue causes me also great concern. lt is a case where a majority is voting on a minority right as to whether or not those minority rights should be protected. - (I nterjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee is recessed for as long as necess ary. (SHORT RECESS) MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, S. Ashton: Comm ittee will reconvene. Ms. Kirk. MS. B. KIRK: The plebiscite on the issue causes me great concern. lt is a case where a majority is voting on minority rights as to whether or not those minority rights should be protected.

To me this is wrong, it shows a lack of moral leadership on behalf of our civic politicians; again, an analogy to labour relations is appropriate. lt is considered a denial of the duty of fair representation for a majority to bargain away minority rights in a collective agreement or to fail to address mi nority rights or concerns while bargai ning.

The plebiscite can be viewed as a vote by the majority as to whether French language rights in Manitoba should be enshrined in the Constitution, something which civic politicians have no business letting the majority vote on and for which they could be charged with a failure to represent their minority. I have great problems, quite frankly, understanding why people are opposed to granting access by the French services in their language.

The debate seems to centre around four separate arguments: one, the enhancement of French rights somehow diminishes others' rights; a new elite will be created; it is too costly; or it's strictly a plain matter that there is no need for French here. As for Quebe c, the rest of Canada is English. To those who say enhancement of French rights destroy or dimini shes their rights, I would ask them why they feel rights are part of a fixed pie. A right to one group does not diminish a right to others.

To me, access to French enhances my rights, not restricts or constricts them; it would also appear to be a view suppor ted by other ethnic leaders in this province. lt would appe ar to be a view sup ported by eth nic leadership in this province. To those who say a new elite will be created, I'd say join it if you like, it is an elite with unboundable barriers, those people can learn a language with varying degrees of difficulty. Our society is full of elites, sports elites, academic elites, political elites, computer science elites.

If you want to participate in the field learn the skills that permit access to the field. Elites only concern me when the barriers are difficult to mount, blood ties, social ties or money, but a bilingual elite is there for anyone to join and must join if they want to participate in any national forum. Why, even Mr . Crosbie decided that he wanted to join that elite.

The cost aspect cannot be denied, there is a cost to translate and to provide for services, but it is also costly to provide other services of a cultural enrichment -libraries, museums, galleries -all supported by public funds for an enhanced society. On the plus side the language skills will not be to a disadvantage in the international field, whether it be busi ness or politics. The final reason I have heard, by people who oppose this resolution, is the basic French for Quebec, English for the rest of Canada, the identical point of view put apart by the Parti Quebecois, strange bedfellows, indeed.

I can only reply that my vision of Canada differs, I see it as a bilingual, but multicultural country where the interface between French and English language and the multiculturalism creates an ambienc e, a sense of Canadian uniqueness that differentiates us from the behemoth to the south. My ancestors were part of the prob lem, but I am confident that my children won't be. My son is enrolled in a French Immersion kindergarten, and I hope that he will be able to participate in an enhanced Canadian society where he, and others, will have access to government service in English and French if they so desire.

Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN, A. Anstett: Thank you, Ms. Kirk. Questions for Ms. Kirk from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your p>esentation. 1084

Monday, 3 October, 1983 Sandra Oleson. MS. S. OLESON: Mr . Chairman, and members of the committee. I am here today as an individual and as a resident of Man itoba who is opposed to the proposed bilingualism agreement of this government. I believe it will be costly and promote disun ity. I cite the federal bilingualism program as proof of my concern. In the government's own brochures it is stated that the Man itoba plan is not like federal bilingualism and that it is not making Mani toba bilingual.

I interpret the existing Manitoba Act as a limited form of bilingualism, in that it provides for French in the Legislature, the statutes and the courts. The Pawley proposal would extend services and leave

interpretation of those services with the courts, rather than with the Legislature of Manitoba. Amendment and entrenchment at this time, while it may seem desirable to some, is not necessa ry, rights are not being taken away or denied. With the amendment the following items could become major problems, and I'll list them. 1. The threat by Serge Joyal, Secretary of State, that Canada will become a French state moves one step closer to reality. 2. lt is very likely that the demand for French services will far exceed the intent of the legislation. Mr .

Joyal has stated that Francophones should be entitled to French services at the municipal level. If this amendment is entrenched, does this not become a right and go far beyo nd the intent of the legisla tion? Recent comments made by the President of the Franco­ Man itoban Society to the media that services of the fire department, police department of north St. Boniface were inadequate for French-speaking is precisely what I'm talking about. Do these services not come under municipal, or civic jurisdiction? Does this mean that individuals with the capability to speak French must be assig ned to St.

Bon iface, or that these civic departments mu st hir e only those with French of bilingual capacity? Pardon me, I want to restate that. These civic department must hire only those with French bilingual capacity. 3. There will be a backlash and difficult times for Manitobans. Nothing in this province's recent history has been as divisive as the government's attempt to negotiate an agreement with the Franco-Manitoban Society. A group of Franco-Man itobans, a group largely funded by the Federal Government, which purports to represent all of the province's French-speaking.

There has been lots of talk about bigotry, anti-French feeling and denial of rights. Denial of rights may be appropriate when we speak about the courts and the Legislature as stated in the Man itoba Act of 18 70, and repealed in 18 90, but I find it hard to believe that there has been a denial of rights in everyday affairs of this province. French-speaking appear to hold positions of importance in the province relative to their percentage of population, as do most of the established ethnic minorities. Has it mattered in this province, really mattered, what a person's ethnic origin is?

People have not tended to care about ethnic origin as a factor in day-to-day life until the Federal Government legislated differences based on ethnic origin. Manit obans did not consider ethnic origin as critical to being a Manitoban until this government's proposal. lt is only through government intervention and government funding to ethnic pressure groups that the issue of ethnic minority rights has really surfaced. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has Mini ster of Mu lticulturalism to promote differences of ethnic origin.

Most countries encourage patriotism, unity and the common good of all citizens, as opposed to the rights of different groups of citizens. I, an d many others, fear that one day Canadians will find it impossible to appease the clamoring of all the many and varied groups for rights. I believe that a lot of good will and harmony has been destroyed because this government has been hasty and ill-advised in coming to an agreement in secret with one small group of people, federally-funded, who will not release their membership list to the public.

This government has tried to ram legislation through in mid-summer and it had to be pressured into providing public meetings to explain the proposal which would affect all Manitobans. I am thankful that the government saw fit to hold these hearings, but I am very upset that the Leader of the Opposition has had to bear the abuse of the government and the media for fighting for the right of Manitobans to be heard. I also would like tu comment on the proliferation of organized groups that receive pu::,lic funding, provincial and federal, who have appeared at these hearings to support the government position.

I do not believe that they represent the people of Man itoba. They only speak for their group. This government has to arrive at a consensus of all Manitobans, if legislation is to be good. Pierre Trudeau said you cannot legislate language into existence and in his perversity, he is attempting to do that very thing for political gain, and I hope that this government has considered that statement. My husband and I are the product of different ethnic minor ities that ho mesteaded Ma nitoba and Saskatchewan at the turn of the century.

I do know that when our families emigrated to Canada, there was no choice as to which language they would educate their children in. Most of the different ethnic groups attempted to learn English as quickly as they could so that they could communicate with each other. Manitoba today is a kaleidoscope of ethnic names in busine ss, government, industry, education, etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the product of all these minority grou ps should not be held re sponsible for the amendment to The Manitoba Act in 18 90.

My neighbour who emigrated here in 1952 was told by immigration officials that the family would have to learn Englis h. Five years later, when applying for citizensh ip, that again was another conce rn. This r·aighbour is now understandly upset. I'm trying to tell you that to entrench language rights tor the French-speaking minority, which have not existed for 90 years, will indeed affect all Manitobans. lt will affect all other minorities and the government must admit this to Manitobans.

Older ethnic groups have overcome the language difficulties that a new Canadian has and their children, having the benefit of public school education, have it much easier now. I can see no benefit to the new Canadian who must cope with 1085

Monday, 3 October, 1983 employment and adjusting to life in a strange country. I cannot see how entrenchm ent of these rights for the French-speaking population will help the new Canadian. I wish I could endorse the government proposal, but I can't help but wonder if the injustices suffe red by the 5,000 to 10 ,000 French in 18 90 to 1920 will be rather pale, compared to what one million Manitobans will experience with the entrenchme nt of language rights. The government appears to be at the stage now where it's trying to convince minorities that they will be protected .

Sinc e this issue has come to light, the ethnic minorities of the province -the major ity politically unorganized and represented by no group -have been very unsettled and they are the majority. All the ethnic minorities of this province are the majority. They are unorganized and I would say represented by no group. I believe that when you grant special privileges to one small group, set them apart from the larger whole, that the rights of the individual are eroded. This explains the lack of consensus for th is government's proposal.

I would also like to touch upon the Bilodeau case in the courts. it's my opinion that because a government is attempting to tr anslate current statutes, as well of backlog of 90 years of statutes, that the government is limited by time, manpower and finances. This do es not constitute a denial of rights and all the judges of this land know, as representatives of law and order, tha t one canno t orde r th e imp ossi ble or th e unreasonable.

Do you think that the judges of Manitoba in 18 70 had ever heard of the term "entrenchm ent?" Can we step into the shoes of the legislators of 18 90? lt seems to me that the law and the circumsta nces of that period between 18 70 and 18 90 were somewhat fuzzy. Here's a summation of my concerns: 1. The Franco-Manitoban Society seeks legislation to promote French and to make up for the void that has existed in the Legislature and the courts since 18 90. That has been restored. The government is attempting to restore that. That is their mandate; the courts have ordered it.

I do not believe th at this group has the support or the respect of Manitob ans. 2. The Mani toba Government needs a broad mandate from the people in order to follow through with this proposal. If it isn't there the resolution shoul d be dr opped and the matter sett led by allowing the Bilodeau case to proceed to the Supreme Court. I have seen no sign of a general consensus at this point . 3. All federal parties should stay out of what is a Mani tob a-provincial issue. My respect for Premier Pawley has increased somewhat since his delib erations with Pierre Trudeau.

I do believe that Premier Pawley should convey the same message to Mr . Broad bent and Mr . Mulr oney. 4. The med ia should be ashamed of itself and I cite the Toronto Globe and Mail and columnist Richarr1 Cleroux for ob noxious journalism. Frances Russell of the Winnipeg Free Press and that paper's edorial policy are very irrespo nsible, and I have included two articles from both of th ose papers. Mr . Cleroux, speaking about the rally in Ste.

Anne and the people who attende d that rally, describe d the situation as thus: "They've had it with the racial insults, the slurs, the arson, the vandalism and the anti-French graffiti on their homes and buildings." The Toronto Globe and Mail, national newspaper. And Frances Russell: "French Rights issue turning into a pogrom." Press and medi a groups are responsible for being ill-informed, biased and insensitive to the people in Manitoba and we'll never forget this unfair treatment. As deeply concerned Canadi ans, Manitobans de serve better than you and I'm referring to the press and the medi a.

Last ly I want to say that my Canada is a wonderful country and I regret that I, only one out of thousand s who feel similarly, is here before you today to tell you that I don' t want language to di vide this province and it do esn't have to, if our legislators represent all people. Thank you for this opportunity toda y. I hope that whatever the decision of this government that the people of Manitoba and their wishes will be fulfilled. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Oleson. Questions for Ms. Oleson from membe rs of the committee? Mr . Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr . Chairman. Through you to Mr s.

Oles on, Mr s. Oles on, you expressed a concern about the way that this whole program has been reporte d by the press and you singled out a Toronto Globe and Mail and I believe the

article by Ms. Russell in the Winnipeg Press. I noticed you have said nothing about the radio or the TV, is that delib erate omission on your part or was it jus t that you ... ? MS. S. OLESON: I really only wanted to pick out a few examples that were really blatant. I think in some of the cases there has been a lack of coverage of the issue. The medi a tends to pick coverage only of the pro-government view. MR. H. GRAHAM: Ms.

Oleson, you also seem to be very st rong that unless there was - I believe you used the word "firm", I don't think you used the word "consensus," - a firm unders tanding of the dir ection we're going, you felt the government should dr op the whole issue. Is th a t correct? MS. S. OLESON: I don't think I used the terminology "under standing." I think I meant in that particular sta tem ent , general agreem ent , cons ensus of all Manitobans. MR. H. GRAHAM: To arrive at th at genera! agreement of all Manitobans, how would you go about that? MS. S.

OLESON: Well, I do think that the government has attempted to do that very thing in the last month by bringing out an amendment to the amend ment or a proposed amend ment, which I won't go into, but ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Graham. MS. S. OLESON: I'm not quite finished. But it appears th at the suggested amend ment, or whatever you would 1086

Monday, 3 October, 1983 call it, does not meet the approval of the Franco­ Man itoban Soci ety, who is one of the parties to the agreement. lt still has not got a consensus from the totality of the province, the rural municipalities. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairm an, the previous person we had before the comm ittee stated that it was her belief the government should proceed with the original agreement only. I think she made it quite clear that was the position that she favoured.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that perhaps with some of the amendments it might be, shall I use the word "more palatable." Could you give us your opinions of the original proposal and how the various amendments affect it? In which way would it make it more palatable? MS. S. OLESON: I would say that I am opposed to the ent renc hment of the res olution , the original resolution. I don't know how I can comment on the suggested amendments because we really don't know whether they're going to be incorporated or not. MR. H. GRAHAM: Those are my qu estio ns, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Mr . Stor ie. HON. J. STORIE: Ms. Oleson, I think you presented us with certainly some things to consid er, and I would like to thank you for a thoughtful presentation. I have two questions: one, you expressed concern with respect to the amendments and how those amendments might be interpreted by the courts and expressed some concern about some of the vagaries, as it were, that would have to be, or would probably be, left up to the cour ts to interpret. Yet, later on in your presentation you suggested that we should let this go to the Supr eme Court. I'm wondering if those positions aren't contradicto ry. MS. S.

OLESON: Well, I don't feel they are. If you could just give me a minute to think about that. My concern is that the provincial amendment is a very open-ended proposal, and I think that has been the concern that has been expressed by most of the oponents. How do we define what "significant demand" is? I think most of the people, who have been concerned, feel that this would be an ongoing thing; every few years we would have to go and define significant numbers, more rights, that type of thing. I think if it goes to the Supr eme Court, that's a totally different situation.

We are allowing the case to follow a course that it should follow. lt's a r.atural course. We are not short circuiting it. We're giving Manit obans the opportunity to see the

interpretation of the Supreme Court of our Constitution. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairman, am I to take it from that then, it would be your view that, if the Supr eme Court ruled on the Bilodeau case, that would be the end of it? Or would there be additional challenge given that the Bilodeau case revolves around the particular issue or whether the laws in Man itoba, since 18 90, are indeed valid, so there would are some other aspects 1087 of the Man itoba Act?

Is it not conceivable that even if this case went before the court, I mean it proceeded through the courts, would there not be additional challenges because of the ambiguities of The Manitoba Act itself? MS. S. OLESON: I perceive that if we do not allow this case to go to the Supreme Court that is exactly what is going to happen, that there will be additional challenges to the amendment and it will go on for years and years and years. HON. J.

STORIE: So you are suggesting that our attempts in some respects to provide limited practical official bilingualism haven't been as successful by the amendments as you see them? MS. S. OLESON: Are you speak ing about the second set of amendments? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MRS. S. OLESON: I really wanted to avoid discussing that, because I think they were thrown out for discussion purposes. My concerr was with the original resolution and entrenchment of that resolution. HON. J.

STORIE: One final question, somewhere in your remarks you mentioned that you felt that the injustice -and I think you used the term "injus tice" - of the last 93 years would pale into insignificance com pared to the injustice that would be perpetrated on the Man itobans of today. I'm wondering what injustice there is in providing rights that, in principle, you have ackno wledged should be provided. MS. S. OLESON: If I can go back to the rights, I think the rights have been restored. The 18 70 rights have been restored.

The government may be a little slow in the translation process, but those rights have been restored. I think we have to accept that in good faith. I am not opposed -I'm a little slow here today -I'm not opp osed to services to the Frenc h-speaking population, not opposed to services at all. I am opposed basically to the entrenchment of the services, and leaving this sort of open-ended type of thing open or up to the courts, rather than to the Legislature of the province. HON. J.

STORIE: Perhaps there's jus t a difference of definit ion, because you have ackno wledged and it's recogn ized that The Man itoba Act is part of the Canadian Constitution, so there are entrenched rights. MS. S. OLESON: In the Legislatur e, the cou rts only. HON. J. STORIE: I su ppo se th at's a matter of

interpretation. MS. S. OLESON: it's a limited form of bilingualism. HON. J. STORIE: Mr . Chairman, I would like to get back to the question of what injustice there is to the rest of Man itoba by providing rights that you yourself have ackno wledged should be provided, by providing

Monday, 3 October, 1983 those by way of the Constitution by way of amendment. What injustice is that to other people, providing people with their right? MS. S. OLESON: Oka y, I think the one problem that could arise is bilingualism in terms of every office, every area has to have a totally bilingual set of services whether there is a demand there or not. We can all organize a demand, but whether there is a genuine demand is another thing. The constant uproar of this demand for these services and going to the courts for

interpretation, I see as very divisive, the pitting of your elected people against each other. HON. J. STORIE: I'm still uncertain as to how that constitutes an injus tice to other people. it affects no other people, other than those French-speaking people who want to obtain that service. How is that an injustice to the other people of the province who are, for whatever reasons, not provided those guarantees in The Man itoba Act? MS. S.

OLESON: I do believe though that if you are offering bilingual services throughout the whole province where there are significant numb ers, that you have personnel to staff in your Civil Service, in your courts. In every facet that government controls, you have to have bilingual capacity which dictates that there be a demand for bilingual personnel. HON. J. STORIE: Just through the process of this committee, if we could provide the kind of limited service that is based on need, would that be an acceptable thing to entrench in the Constitution, if we could find that magical solution? MS. S.

OLESON: Can I ask you to restate that again, please? I'm not just too sure of what you are asking me. HON. J. STORIE: Mr . Chairman, the concern is that, as you've expressed it, is that you see that over time and through pressure on politicians that the need , because of its indistinctness, could create the necessity for bilingual services all over the province, when clearly that wasn't the intention, I don't believe, initially. lt was to pr ovide services where ther e was a demand. "Sign ificant demand" is the term that was used.

I am asking whether, if there was some magical formula to ensure that wouldn 't happen, would you suppor t the id ea of pro vid ing th ose services, entrenching those services as has been suggested? MS. S. OLESON: I don't think I could support the entrenchment of services as a right. HON. J. STORIE: That's all, Mr . Chairman. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm glad you finished, Mr . Storie. I was having some reservat ions about you r line of questioning. Mr . Graham. MR. H. GRA HAM: Mr . Chairman, jus t one mo re question of Ms. Oleson. Some of it stems from the answers given to Mr . Storie. Ms.

Oleson, you've made it qu ite clear tha t you are not op posed to the entrenchment of rights in a Constitution, it's the services tha t you are oppo sed in entr enchment in the Constitution. Is that right? MS. S. OLESON: I would say that the present situation that we have right now in that The Manitoba Act of 18 70 has been vindicated, the rights have been restored - (Interjection) - That's right. That's how I feel, leave it there right now. All of the services that are in the propo sed amendment can be offered by this government without entrench ing them as a right. MR. H. GRAHAM: A final question, Mr .

Chairman. We have been tol d when this was propo sed in the Legislature that one of the reasons for bringing forward this proposal was to avoid a case in the Supr eme Court. Would you believe that is sufficient grounds to amend a Constitution; namely,

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act which to my knowledge has served this province well for 11 3 years? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Ms. Oleson. A MEMBER: You're right, give or take a few years. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. For those members who don't want to hear Ms. Oleson's answer, you might well carry on their conversation out in the hall. MS. S. OLESON: I would not be standing here today if I believed that was the proper course to go.

That's precisely why I am here today is that I am opposed to this short-circuiting of what I consider should be a natural process; that this court challenge should have been allowed to proceed its natural course. Let the Supreme Court rule on it, and then if this government has to and wants to go through with some type of formal amendment with a lot of discussion and a lot of consideration with all the people of Manitoba, then I would be, I think most in favour of it. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you. Ms. Oleson, you said both in your brief and in response to Mr .

Graham a minute ago, that you fel t that the righ ts of the Franco­ Manitobans have been restored with the 1980 case and the rwing of the Supreme Court. Are you then implying, and I think you implied earlier in your brief, that this only referred to the Legislature and the courts? MS. S. OLESON: The Manitoba Act of 18 70 said that French and English may be used in the courts and the Legislature and the statutes of the province. That is what the law says. MR. D. SCOTT: The law states that the acts of the Legislature must be translated into both languages. 1088

Monday, 3 October, 1983 You are now saying that because they have not been translated, the court cannot rule that the laws are invalid? MS. S. OLESON: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ord er, order please. Mr . Scott if you ask questions for clarification, you'll avoid having a misun derstanding as to your question, rather than supplying an answer with the question. MR. D. SCOTT: Are you saying that the Federal Court, in its ruling, will ignore the Constitution and say that the laws are in English, or laws are valid because they're English only?

The Constitution requires language to be valid to be printed in both English and in French. You responded, I believe in your brief, you stated that you did not think the courts would rule the laws invalid. Do you expect the courts to ignore the Constitution of Manitoba, which is part of the Constitition of Canada? MS. S. OLESON: Certainly not MR. D. SCOTT: Certainly not, so then you would . MS. S. OLESON: I mean they have to rule on what The Manitoba Act says, do they not? I mean there's a court challenge. MR. D. SCOTT: Yes, and they already have given indication to the ruling. Is it your

interpretation then, in the Blaikie case, is strictly the Legislature and the courts is all that Sect ion 23 refers to? That's what you're saying? MS. S. OLESON: That's right, and the st atutes. MR. D. SCOTT: Are you aware that in the Blaikie case that the Supr eme Cour t of Canada ruled that Sec tion 23 and in their reference in Quebec, Sect ion 13 3 of The BNA Act contains the principle . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Orde r ple ase. Questions of references to the Blaikie case have been ruled out of order in the past when they were not directly referred to in the brief. You can't very well deviate from that now.

Further questions Mr . Scott? MR. D. SCOTT: Well, I think it's fairly important to get the basis .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not about to change my ruling. I've been going with it for a month. MS. S. OLESON: If I may add something, I would really not want to comment on the Blaikie case. MR. D. SCOTT: Ms. Oleson , have you done any legal research yourself into the history behind the cases that are in relation to this current action? MS. S. OLESON: I've done some reading. I'm not a lawyer. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt may be an asset MS. S. OLESON: May someday I will be, but at this point, no. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr . Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Jus t one shor t qu esti on, Mr . Chairman. Awhile ago Mr . Gr aham referred to

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act that served us so well for these 11 3 years. Do you agree with that statement? MS. S. OLESON: Would you state that again please? MR. G. LECUYER: In asking his question, Mr . Graham awhile ago referred to Sect ion 23 of The Manitoba Act having served us so well for 11 3 years. In answering that question of his, you did not say whether you agreed with that statem ent or not. I wonder if you would now. MS. S. OLESON: Did he ask me whether I agreed with it? MR. G. LECUYER: Well, it was part of his question, he didn' t ask you whether you agreed with it or not, but I'm asking you that.

I'm simply asking you if you agree with that statement? MS. S. OLESON: I really don't know if it has any bearing upon my brief, I really don' t kn ow. I mean that was his own comment on the situation. Do you agree with it? MR. CHAIRMAN: it's not an answer to ask members questions. Mr . Lecuyer, do you have further questions for clarification of the brief? MR. G. LECUYER: Mr . Chairman, I was not going to. Ms. Oleson awhile ago referred to rights having been restored under The Manitoba Act and therefore I think that my que stion is related to your statement.

I would gather then that you don't agree that it served us well thr oughout th ose 11 3 years, since you've agreed that the rights were restored. MS. S. OLESON: I would say in the day-to-day living of people in this province that The Manitoba Act has been satisfactory. I agree that it was an injustice at the time and I'm all for services for the French-speaking people in th is province. I'm jus t op posed to th e entrenchme nt, because I see it as divisive and as expensive. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr . Chairman, I think Ms. Oleson, whether she realizes or not, has answered my question. Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Ms. Oleson for members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your present ation this evening. Before I call the next delegat ion to the committee, Mr . Scott's been here all evening but I forgot to advise that the Clerk has received the resignation of Mr. Penner and I understand Mr . Scott is the replacement. Could 1089

Monday, 3 October, 1983 I have a motion to that effect? - (Interject ion) - Is th at agreed? Nobody wants a recorded vote? Agreed and so ordered. I wish to advise memb ers that No. 37 has asked to be removed from the list. No. 38, Ray Brunka; No. 40, Heat her St one; Henr y Hub er; Jack Froese; Pet er Thiessen; Ruth Pear; AI Wexler; Judy Flynn. Proceed please, Ms. Flynn. MS. J. FLYNN: Mr .

Chairman, members of the St anding Committee, I'm very greatful to have been given this opportu nity to speak, because I found myself in recent weeks becoming increasingly distr essed by the picture of Mani toba that's emerged in the Press reports of these hearings. We seem to have become intent on showing the rest of the country that in Mani toba , at least, Lord Durham's descript ion of Canada as two nations warring in the bosom of the single state has not yet been outgrown.

On the one hand, we hear reports of Anglophones, who are opposed to the governm ent 's pol icy on French langua ge righ t s, exhorting us all to speak Canadian, by which, of course th ey mean English; th en on th e ot her, we hear Francophones arguing passionately for their historic rights. I think it's very important for the government to realize tha t th ere are many non -Francophone s in th e community who support entrenchmen t. I am one, and I know that I speak for others. There are a numb er of important issues involved in this question. One obvious one is the whole matter of minority rights.

We have been told that these can safely be left to the protection of our elected representatives. I should think tha t the experienc e of Ja pane se­ Canadians on the west coast in World War 11 would have taught us how fragile that protection can be. Mino rity rights are far too important to be left to the whim of legislative fiat or referendums for tha t matter. All of us ought to be concerned about their protection, whether we belong to minorities or not.

The tyranny of the majority diminishes all of us, perhaps most of all when we're part of a majority; but the French, of course, are not ju st another minority. They are one of the three founding cultures of this nation and specifically of this province. Their ancestors entered Confederation with certain solemn assurances concerning French language and educa tion. Both ju stice and honour demand that these promises be kept .

The amend ment of 18 90, which denied French rights has long been a shameful blo t on the pages of Manitoba's history and I, for one, rejoice that we have been given an oppor tu nity to erase it. Finally, Mr . Chairman, I should like to add ress myself to the often repeated argument that agreements made in the past no longer matter because Francophones now constitute only 6 percent of the population of Manitoba. That argument is both irrelevant and immoral. lt implies that once a minority th rough deliberate government policy has been reduced below a certain numerical level, its rights no longer exists.

If that ever becomes the guiding principle for legislation in this province, God help us all. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: Thank you, Ms. Flynn. Are there any questions for Ms. Flynn from members of the committee? Mr . Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Were you pleased in 1980 with the unani mous act ion taken by all mem bers of th e Legislat ure here in Mani toba following the Forest case, which was ruled on by the Su preme Court and the su bsequ ent unanimous non -partisan action of the Legislature at that tim e? MS. J. FLYNN: I think it was a beginning. MR. H.

ENNS: You mentioned you are glad to have the opportu nity to participate. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Enns, could you please pull the mike a little closer to you? MR. H. ENNS: You mentioned that you are glad to have the opportu nity to participate in erasing what we now know to be the illegal amendm ent of 18 90. MS. J. FLYNN: Yes. MR. H. ENNS: How is it that what we are doing today is helping to further erase or be part of that? MS. J.

FLYNN: I think if I unde rstand correctly, that the previous legislation really places those rights as something like a courtesy from the government, that I think they have to be entrenched in the Constitution. MR. H. ENNS: Mr .

Chairman, I appreciate that I can't, you know, it's not my role to debate with the party present ing a brief, but I want to put on the record that, it wasn't a matter of courtesy, it was a matter of direction by the law in this country; namely the Su preme Court, that declared the 18 90 Act illegal and the subsequent bill that was passed in this Legislatu re supported by all mem bers of the Legislatu re, in a truly non-partisan way, acknowledged that and proceeded to carry out the direction of the court. I'm having trouble -perhaps let me ask this question. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no. Mr .

Enns, if you have a question, let Ms. Flynn respond please. MR. H. ENNS: You are supportive of increasing the linguistic rights of the French commun1ty from what they originally were. Is that your basic position? MS. J. FLYNN: I'm sup port ive of a pol icy which entrenches language rights in the Co nstitution. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Enns. MR. H. ENNS:

Section 23, as restored by the Supreme Court in 1979 doesn't do that in your opinion? MS. J. FLYNN: I don't want to get into an argument that debates them the minutia of the agreement because I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I would be presu ming far beyond my competence where I to begin to discuss it. I want to go on record that I support the policy that entrenches both language and services for the Francophone minority in this province, and I have 1090

Monday, 3 October, 1983 stated that this is what I believe the hearings wanted to find out, so I have told you. MR. H. ENNS: On another subje ct, the question th at you spoke of in your presentation has arisen several time s in front of th is committee, and that is the rather tragic aberration of rights that the Japanese-Canadian community suffered during the Second World War.

In th e last few years , parti cularly th e ti me of th e constitutional discussions in Canada, we of ten look in this sense to the Americans who have, of course, a constitution entrenched with fundamental rights, basic rights, human rights entrenche d. Having those rights entrenched in th e American Cons titu ti on didn' t safeguard the same thing from happening to Americans of Japanese origin during that same period of time, did it? MS. J. FLYNN: I don't think that's an argument against it. MR. H. ENNS: No, it's simp ly saying th at un der unfortunate circumstances . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr.

Enns, you are entering into a debate with the delegate. Do you have a question for clarification? MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, I simply ask -the present er is placing a gr eat deal of fait h in th e entrench ment. I was merely asking her whether or not and citing a case, a black case, in Canadian history of Canadians of Japanese origin that had their rights rather brutally trampled on, I'm simply asking her whether or not those rights that Americans of Japane se origin had in an entrenched constitution did not also fail to safeguard a nation when aroused in that manner in wartime. MS. J. FLYNN: Mr.

Chairman, all human arrangements are fallible and the fact th at one fails in one country is no argument against the position. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr . Chairman, through you to Ms . Flynn, regarding the point that Mr . Enns brought up, at least in the United States a citizen would have had the possi bility - a Japanese citizen -of raising the issue to the Su preme Court and I'm ask ing Ms. Flynn if she's aware of any Japanese-Americans raising the issue to the Su preme Court in the United States where they had an option,

whereas in Canada there was no option? MS. J. FL YNN: 1 don 't know, I can't answer that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Further questions for Ms. Flynn from members of the committee? Seeing none, th ank you very muc h for you r present ation. MS. J. FL YNN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Derwyn Davies; Ruth Rannie, Rainie. Is it Rannie or Rainie? MS. R. RANNIE: Rannie, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Rannie, th ank you. MS. R. RANNIE: Would you like a copy of my brief for your record? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. MS. R.

RANNIE: I am present ing this brief as a private citizen to support the original agreement between the Societe franco-manitobaine and the Provincial and Federal Governments. My reasons are both personal and historical. First ly, I should like to point out that I have made Manitoba my home for the past nine years. I was born and raised in Montreal, Quebec, and lived there for 16 years. I then lived in the eastern townships of Quebec where I attended university.

By the age of 26, when I moved to Winnipeg, I had tr avelled from Newfou ndland to Vancouver Island and had lived in all of the regions of this country except the Arctic. I am a Canadian nationalist and would like to think that I could move anywhere in Canada and feel at home there. But I chose Man itoba. I now consider myself a "Manitoban," but being born and raised in the Province of Quebec has given me a perspective on minority rights which most Canadian Anglophones could not have experienced outside of Quebec.

To be part of a minority group gives one certain psychological attitudes which are different from those of the majori ty. Growing up in Quebec, I enjoyed the privileges of the English language in education, in cultu re, in com merce and in deal ing wit h the government. When my parents had to go to court for a tr affic accident, they appreciated the privilege of testifying in their mother tongue. Nevertheless, being part of the minority, we felt insecure. We could not appr oach th e majo rity of pr ovincial governm ent members in our own language.

There was a sense of isolation and we looked to the Federal Government to protect our interests. I expect many Francophones outside of Quebec feel more insecure than we did because in Manitoba their rights were removed and they must have felt powerless against the majority of Anglophones. In Ontario, their rights have yet to be confirmed. Althou gh my family lived in an English culture, there were many ways in which the French Canadian majority influenced my thinking and unde rstanding of what it means to be a Canadian.

The most important fact was that my parents stressed the importance of being able to speak French so that, by the time we were adults, most of my family was bilingual. 1091 Secondly, I grew up with a sense of Canadian identity in which Francophone and Angl ophone were inextricably bound. Mont real has a long history dating to the 16th Centu ry . Driving past Lake St. Louis and Lake of Two Mountains, where the Ottawa River empties into the St. Lawrence River, I couldn't help but imagine the brigades of voyageurs setting off for the fur trade and the Nort hwest.

The long lots along the river, the seigneuries, the stone houses, the village churches with tall, shiny steeples, flaming red maples in the autumn and sugaring -off in the spring -these scenes from my childhood are part of my cultural inheritance -my geography and my histo ry.

Monday, 3 October, 1983 As a resident of Manitoba, I have always valued the presence of the Franco-Manitoban community here. I have attended French theatre and concerts, subscribe to La Li berte and send my childr en to French Immersions schools. In fact, the French Immersion programs in Mani toba are among the best in Canada and there is no doub t in my mind that its success is due to th e ta lents and perseverance of Fran co­ Manitobans who have kept the French education alive under most trying circumstances.

I have talked to people who remember having to hide their French books when the inspector paid a visit or who were to "Speak White." I have personally heard derogatory remarks made against Francophones, the French language and French education and also many personal remarks made against our Prime Min ister -simply because he is French-speaking. Such remarks offend me, not only because they are directed against a minority group, a group which is suppo sed to be "equal partn ers in Confedera tion," but also because it offends all notions of to lerance and understanding which I thought Canada represent ed.

I have always been proud of the fact that this nation was not a melting pot and th at minority groups were encouraged to maintain their identities. For the Franco-Manitoban, this has not been easy, not only because of the fact that Anglophone immigration has overwhelmed them and upset the balance of power that existed in 18 70, but also because the rights that were guaranteed in The Mani toba Act were, in fact, taken away. lt is for this reason that I suppo rt the Provincial Government's stand to entrench these rights.

They should be beyond the grasp of blinkered politicians who do not honour their historical commitments and callous councillors who are not above inflaming bigotry and division as an expedient method of re-election. I would like to remind the committee that despite all the talk of a Made-in-Manitoba solution this is a national issue and the outcome is having and will have nat!onal repercussions.

Last sum mer, while visiting in Mont real, I proudly described to a friend how my daughter could speak French fluent ly at the age of eight and how pleased I was with the Mani toba school system that had helped her accomplish this. Her response was: "All we hear about Mani toba in Queb ec is how they hate the French." I really resent the fact that this dialogue needs to take place at all -the fact that it is reflecting poorly on Mani tobans. The rights of Franco­ Manitobans should not be questioned. The hysterical newspaper advertisements published by Mr . Doern and the extended filibustering of Mr .

Lyon and his party are em barras sing to me and, on behalf of ot her Anglophones who are similarly offended, I wish to apologize to the Franco-Manitoban community for this unjustified behaviour. Aside from personal reasons, my other reas0.., fo" appearing here is to discuss the early history of this province. At the present time, I am researching the biography of my great-great uncle, Robert Atkin son Davis. His portrait hangs in the other committee room because he was Premier of Manitoba from 18 7 4 to '78. I wish you could see his picture and those of the other early Premiers and reflect on their legacy to us.

The 18 70s were an important time in the constitutional life of the young province and little is known about it. From my research, it would appear that Robert Davis played an important role in relaxing much of the tension that existed among the disparate groups that lived in the Red River Sett lement. He was born and raised on a farm in the eastern townships of Quebec, but moved to the Red River in the spring of 18 70 as a young man when Louis Riel was holding Fort Garry. Unlike the first trickle of Canadians arriving from Ontario, he could speak French.

He understood and was sympathet ic to the cause of the Metis and was able to buy a business and settle into the community. Although opposed to the monopolies of the Hudson's Bay Company, he did not participate in the hysterical anti-French and anti­ Catholic agitations of the Canadian Party. He bought a hotel, which was later called the Davis Hous e, and within four years, at the age of 33, this relative newcomer was elected to the Legislat ure and within six months became Premie r. Out of the 14 mem bers elected to his government, 10 were French-speaking.

This caused such an uproar from the "Canadian" Party who were basically anti-French that he soon formed a coalition government and invited the Leader of the Opposition, the "English" Party, John Norqu ay, to join his Cabinet. As a bilingual Anglophone leader, Davis was in a unique position to unify the different factions. He was thus able to maintain a stable government for four years while he reorganized the finances of the province which were dreadfully overextended. When he retired from his post in 18 78, Le Metis , the French paper, said of him: "Mr.

Davis is endowed with an upright nature of rare frank ness, st rict ly honour able and of great firmness. He is equitably ju st and without prejud ice. The country owes to Mr . Davis an immense obligation, and to him and his friends the re-establishment of its financial credit . His retirement can only be be regarded as a public calamity." The kind of co-operation which existed at that time is an indication that Mani toba was not a unilingual province at Confedera tion.

From 18 70 to '78, great effort s were made both by the first Lieutenant-Governors, Archibald and Morr is, and the first Premiers, Girard and Davis, to ensure that both French and English were represented in the government institutions. At the opening of Parliament on March 15 , 18 71, for instance, the Hon. Joseph Royal, the first Speaker , read the Speech from the Throne in French and English. The first Legislat ure was described as follows: "A strange gathering of loyalists, Rielites, French half-breeds, English half-breeds, Hudson's Bay Company officers, Selkirk settlers and Canadians.

Half of them were not adept in the drawing room, but they were the first representatives of responsible government in Rupertsland." There was considerable politi cal di vision in the sett lement between the French Party, mainly Metis, the English party, the old settlers who had worked for the Hudson's Bay Company, many of whom were English half-breeds, and the Canadian Party. In fact, it was the Cons ervative Government in Ottawa led by MacDonald and Cartier who understood the division and need for accommodation and who incorporated the demands of the French speakers into The Manitoba Act. lt was Sir George E.

Cartier, a Con servative, who conducted the final negotiations and it was he who sent a numb er of men from Quebec such as Henry Clark and Marc Ama ble Gir ard, bot h bilingua l, to assis t the new Lieutenant-Governor, Archibald, in establishing the new government of the province. Unfortun ately, Archibald 1092

Monday, 3 October, 1983 encountered so much enmity and bigotry from the Canadian Party because of his leniency in dealing with Riel and the Fenian troubles that he had to resign two years later. His enemies had organized public meetings against him and lit bonfires to celebrate his resignation. However, 1 ,300 settlers signed a petition of appreciation for his good qualities and work "to unite and improve all classes of people." The committee may think that Manitoba is suffering division over this issue now, but it was nothing like the violent agitations of the 18 70s.

In any case, despite these tensions, moderate leaders like Robert Davis made headway in accommodating the two language groups. Government printing was done in both languages. Both Roman Catholic and Protestant School Boards were established. lt was only under Premier Norqua y th at th e Cabine t became entirely English in 18 78 and even he later invited two French mem bers to join his Cabi net in 18 79. As immigration increased, the principle of French rights was grad ually whitt led away and misund ers to od.

Nevertheless, it is important for the committee to remember that Francophones, particularly the Metis, played the major role in negotiating The Mani toba Act of 18 70. As the famous Mani toba historian, W.L. Mor ton, has poin ted out: "Riel, in shor t , forced the new Dominion to consider the full implications of the work of Confederation; and he demonstrated that Canada was not to be governed, as the Northw est was not to be annexed, without the co-operation of French and English Canadians.

Above all, the Red River Resistance revealed, in its full course and in full perspective, to wha t ext raordi nary lengths French and English Canadians would go, in spite of much mutual irritation and many mutual wrongs, to preserve a common allegiance and to share a common country." Despite the fact that later immigration upset the balance of power between French and English, I believe tha t the original commi tm ent s to recognize both languages must be honoured. lt is a matter of simple justice and historical imperative. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Rannie, questions by members of the committee?

Mr . Scott . MR. D. SCOTT: If there are no questions, then I'd at least like to thank Ms. Rannie for a very well-researched brief and one that has brought a perspective that we haven't seen before this committee before, anywhere near that detailed, so that we and mem bers of the audience and future Mani tobans, as well, can read in our Hn nsard and see some of the early beginnings of Manitoba. I, myself, have gone back and read thr ough the early "Globes" of 18 70 and the reaction in the Eas tern press plus th e de bates of the Ho use of Commons at the time. it's quite a lesson; I wish more people would do it.

I want to thank you very kindly for your brief. MS. R. RANNIE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Rann ie, on behalf of th e committee, thank you very much. MS. R. RANNIE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Charlie Washington; Jesse Vorst, Mr . Vorst; Ken Mo rley; Taib Soufi; Andr e Frechette, Vie S avino - (Interjection) - sorry. And re Frechette. If members will take a short recess, to adjust their headsets; any members of the public who would like to follow the tr anslation can pick up a headset from the technician behind the booth. 1t will be ready in a couple of minutes. (SHORT RECESS) MR. A. FRECHETTE: Thank you Mr .

Chairman. I'd like first to tell the committee th at I represent about 50 teachers from Sain t-Boniface College. Mr . Chairman, membr es du comite. L' Association des professeurs du College universitaire de Saint-Boniface m' a charge de venir, ce soir, exprimer sa determination a lutter pour que !'entente conclue en mai dernier ent re la SF M, le gouvernemen t mani tobain et le gouvern emen t du Canada soit integralement respectee.

L' Associat ion des professeurs du College universitaire de Sain t-Boniface considere que les amendements proposes a !'article 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba, meme a l'etat de projets, ne sont ni plus ni moins qu'une denonciation de !'e ntente. Une manoeuvre politique ou les droits inalienables des Francophones sont mis en jeu en prevision des futures elections. Not re appui a la Societe franco-manitobaine est aussi une mise en garde contre toute tentative de la part de n'imp orte quel gouvernement de vouloir repeter les injustices du passe.

Le temps ou les Franco-Mani tobains etaient seuls a lutter pour preserver leur langue et leur identite est heureusement et definit ivement revolu. La question de nos droits linguistiq ues ne doit plus faire les frais de la petite politique a courte vue ni des caprices des gouvernements qui se succedent. Aujour d'hui, apres 93 ans de brimades de toutes les sortes et de chantage politique, nous avons enfin obtenu le droit de nous epanouir au grand jour, dans notre langue, sans avoir a nous refugier dans la clandestinite. Nous entendons preserver ce dr oit!

Nous sommes dete rmine s a ce que le fran c;;ais retrouve la place qui lui revient depuis le jour ou, en parite avec l'anglais, notre langue donna naissance, par la voix de nos aieux a la province du Manitoba. En 18 70, nos ancetres ont erige des institutions democratiques sur une base bilingue, ils savaient, eux, ce qu'etait le "British fair play", vingt ans plus tard la tr ahison et l' arbitraire det ruisaien t les aspira ti ons legitimes de notre peuple.

L'assimi lation et !'a cculturation ont ete telles qu'on peut parler avec raison de genocide cult ur e! et linguistique puisque 60 000 des n6tres, helas! ont ete perdus. L'entente sur !'a rticle 23 de I' Acte du Manitoba est un progres pour tous les citoyens de notre pays, et de notre province en particulier. Chaque minorite linguistique se tr ouve ainsi assuree de vivre selon ses possi bilites et ses aspirati ons sur le sol manitobain. La majorite anglophone elle-meme devrait pouvoir se feliciter d' une entente qui ne la menace en rien et qui au contraire devrait lui en profiter, si elle s'en prevaut. 1093

Monday, 3 October, 1983 N'y a-t-il pas en effet un grand profit pour tout jeune a connaitre une langue aussi universelle que le franc;:ais? Les ecoles d'i mmersion font la preuve que beaucoup de nos compatriotes anglophones ont compris que !'un ite na tionale et l' avenir de no tr e jeu nesse dependaient d' une education ou la communication a l'echelle de la planete est devenue un imperatif. Cette co mmu nic ation exige de plus en plus la connaissance de plusieurs langues. Comment alors ne pas encour ager !'expansion de la langue franc;:aise qui est l'une des plus parlees dans le monde.

Comment comprendre cet antagonisme vis-a-vis du franc;:ais alors que dans les pays les plus demunis, les enfants parlent couramment deux a trois langues. (N'e st-il pas vrai que la reine est bilingue?) La pluralite des cultures qui coexistent dans notre province devrait nous inciter a en tir er profit plut6t qu'a persister a vivre en vase clos. Peut-on esperer que l'aube d'un jour nouveau est en train de poindre a !'horizon du ciel de chez nous!

La communa ute universitaire du College de Saint­ Boniface, en reiterant son appui a !'en tente et en rejetant les amendements proposes, entend poursu ivre son oeuvre d'e ducation. Les autorites gouvernementales, dont la charge est d'eduquer le public en general sur une question aussi vitale pour le destin de notre communaute, peuvent, si elles sont de benne foi, compter sur notre entiere collaboration. Merci, M. le president. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Frechette. Questions for Mr. Frechette from memb ers of the Committee. Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Merci, M. le president.

Dans le deuxieme alinea sur la page 2, M. Frechette, vous faites reference a 60 000 des n6tres qui ont ate perdus. Est­ ce que vous pouvez nous don ner un peu plus d'expl ication a cet effet. MR. A. FRECHETTE: 11 est evident M. Lecuyer que si on retourne en arriere dans l'histoire depuis 18 90, le fait tout simpl ement que les lois ont interdit l'enseignement en franc;:ais dans nos ecoles ont permis une ass imil ation, une acu ltur at ion qui a emm ene plusieurs des n6tres a perdre leur langue et a vivre uniquement en anglais. MR. G. LECUYER: Certains, M.

Frechette, sont venus ici; ils nous ont parle des bienfaits que cette resolution amendant !'article 23 de I'A cte du Manitoba, pouvait apporter a d'a utres minorites culturelles et d' autres nous ont fait part de leurs craintes ou d'un point de vue tou t a fail oppose. Pouvez-vous elaborer un p"'u davantage sur les avantages que vous voyez cette resolution a apporte aux autres groupes culturels de la province du Manitoba. MR. A.

FRECHETTE: Je pense bien qu'il est evident que si la deuxieme langue officielle du Canada n'e st pas respectee au Manitoba, dans une des provinces du Canada, comment est-ce que les autres groupes ethniques qui aimeraient aussi vivre leur culture, je suppose, si ce groupe de francophones hors Quebec ne peuvent pas vivre dans leur langue, comment peut­ on s'a ttendre ac e qu'un groupe minoritaire d'une autre communa ute ethnique pourrait, elle, vivre aussi dans leur langue et proliferer dans leur culture. C'est dans se sens-18., M. Lecuyer, que je parle de l'aculturation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G.

LECUYER: Merci M. le president. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members of the committee? Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the presenter of this brief. My unde rstanding of the brief is that your association supports the original agreement, sometimes referred to as the May Agreement, that was arrived at with the Franco-Manitoban Society and the government, and rejects the proposed amendments that have been tabled with this committee; is that correct? MR. A. FRECHETTE: That is correct. MR. H.

ENNS: Should the government, and we will be reassembling as a Legislature, should the government persist in bringing this resolution with those proposed amendments, before us, what advice do you have for the committee; how should we vote on that proposal? MR. A. FRECHETTE: With the amendments? MR. H. ENNS: With the amendments intact as proposed some months ago now by Mr. Penner? MR. A. FRECHETTE: I think I would reject it and come back to the May agreement. MR. H. ENNS: For me it's an important question.

As I unde rstand your brief, you would not be advising us, as committee members, to accept the amendments currently before us? MR. A. FRECHETTE: No. Because I feel that the amendments that were proposed the 6th of September are a dilu tion of wha t was propo sed in the Ma y agreement between the Federal GO\·ernment, the Societe franco-manitobaine and with the Provincial Government. MR. H. ENNS: And your advice to the committee would be to reject them? MR. A. FRECHETTE: The amendments, yes. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee?

Seeing none, the Chair would ask leave to ask questions? Leave? (Agreed) Mr. Frechette, you asked the committee to respect the May 17 th agreement. Are you committed to every word of that agreement, or are you committed to the principles of that agreement? 1094

Monday, 3 October, 1983 MR. A. FRECHETTE: Well, I would certainly agree with the principles of the agreements. Now. if there are any changes it would have to be acceptable to the Societe franco-manitobaine. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there were amendments that were acceptable to the Societe franco-manitobaine would they then. by definition. be acceptable to you. or would you want to review those? MR. A. FRECHETTE: I would like to review them, certainly. But. if they would be acceptable to the Societe franco-manitobaine I'm sure that they have jurists, they have experts to study the law; I am not a constitution man.

I'm sure that they would study the amendments that would be proposed and. consequent ly, probably the Franco-Manitobans would be behind it. MR. CHAIRMAN: So your message to the committee, if I can be sure I unde rstand you, with regard to the Ma y 17 th agr eem ent, is tha t you would accept amendments to the May 17 th agreement that did not violate the principles of that agreement, even if it did change some of the language. Is that . . . MR. A. FRECHETTE: As long as they are agreeable with the Societe franco-manitobain. MR. CHAIRMA N: Thank you very much. Further questions for Mr.

Frechette from mem bers of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation, Sir . Mr. Vie Savino. Mr. Savino; Linda Archer. it's a long time to wait when you'r e No. 2 on the list. MS. l. ARCHER: I've been here a lot of times and left a lot of times. Good evening. I wish to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to appear and speak before you. I am here today to express my opposition to the proposed amend ment which. if passed, will extend and entrench French language rights in the Cons titution.

I am here as an individual citizen, not as a member of any ethnic, cultural or special language group. I represent no political party, nor do I receive any government funding, an oddity in itself, maybe, but I don't. I am first and foremost a Canadian residing in the Province of Manitoba. I am proud of my province and of all people in this province. We and our ancestors have lived together and worked together. people of many ethnic backgrounds, such as. French, Ukrainian. German, Polish. Italians. Chinese. Metis and the list could go on and on.

Each cultural group contributed greatly to the development of this province, each person also as an individual. The one common tool shared by many was the use of the English language. This language was merely a tool for communication. a means by which people could commun icate with their neighbours. I believe Manitoba is a multilingual province, French being one of the languages used and accepted. I agr ee with the provi sion of French Language Services as set out in The Manitoba Act of 18 70.

I am sorry these rights were not upheld by governments of the day who came long before my time. and I am 1095 supportive of the return of these rights as ruled by the Supr eme Court in 1980. What I am not suppor tive of is the extension of these rights which have gone far beyond those set out in 18 70. If the language rights of one group are constitutionally guaranteed, what are we, in effect, saying to the other ethnic groups? Much has been said and written about Manitoba since this government's intentions and plans became public knowledge.

This issue could cause serious divisiveness and, if it does, I believe much of the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the media in this country and in this city. We, as citizens of Manitoba and of Canada, still believe we have the right to be heard on such vital and serious is sues as changing our Constitution. If we do not, then maybe we are bigots , as we are always reported to be in the paper, and maybe we should be silent and let government make all our decisions. I believe this government is attempting to pass legislation without a mandate from the people.

I would, therefore, like to suggest to this government they allow the Bilodeau case to proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Archer. Questions for Ms. Archer from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation here this evening. MS. L. ARCHER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Reverend W.J. Hutton, Reverend Hutton; Dr. Vedanand, Dr. Vedenand. Jul iette Blais. MS. J. BLAIS: Members of the legislative committee on the proposed amendment to

Article 23 of The Manitoba Act. Mr. Chairman, and members of the legislative committee, my name is Jul iette Blais, I am a private citizen, and I'm not funded by any government, any organization, or any citizen of this country or any other country. I am a Canadian citizen of French ancestry. The Franco-Manitoban Society does not represent me, nor does it represent the majority of Man itobans of French ancestry. The Franco-Manitoban Society is a federally­ funded organization, and would collapse immed iately upon the withdr awal of federal funds.

Federal intervention has taken place in this province and, at this point, I would like to read from Max Yalden's report as Comm issioner of Official Languages. "One need not look far to find cases illustrating the legitimacy of this concern in both lie des Chemes, Manitoba and Penetan gu ishene, On tario. French-speakin g communities have finally been promised a French language high school, but in neither case was this granted without a long drawn-out battle or without intervention from the highest level." That's end of quote, and let's keep this in mind, because I don't know who the highest level is.

I think I kn ow. Resident taxpayers of lie des Chenes took up a petition opposing building of this French high school, and 485 people signed in opposition out of 600 possible voters. Mr. Roger Dubois, now Vice-President of the

Monday, 3 October, 1983 Franco-Manitoban Society, but in 1980 President of the federally-funded Comite des Parents, took a petition in favour of the school signed by 27 people and not all of them, I might add, residents of lie des Chenes ward . I have brought this point to your attention as proof the French-speaking people in Manitoba are quite aware who will pay for the extended services the Federal Government would like us to em brace. To further prove my point about cost, I will now read a paragraph from Serge Joyal's speech delivered in Nova Scotia on November 13, 1982. "lt seemed normal to me and it is even more normal, I think, for the Federal Government which provides the province