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. 35 - 7:30 p.m., THURSDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Provmce ot Manitoba

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

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

Rose Springfield Thomr.-son La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Chur chill 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 Ch arleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-R ussell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Bur rows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

I LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Thursday, 22 September, 1983 TIME - 7:30 p.m. LOCAT ION - Morden, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Andy Anstett (Sprin gfield) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Mackling, Penner and Plohman Messrs. Anstett, Brown, Graham, Lecuyer, Malinowski, Orchard; and Mrs. Oleson. WITNESSES: Ms. Anne McEachern, Private Citizen Ms. Marie-Bianche Oliviero, Private Citizen Mr. Travis McCullough, Private Citizen Ms. Adeline Fillion, Communi ty of St. Joseph Mr. George Henderson, Private Citizen Mr.

Peter Francis, Private Citizen Ms. Jacqueline Fortier, Private Citizen Ms. Yvonne Pantel, Comite de parents Mr. Paul A. Cenerini, Personnel de l'lnstitut collegial Notre-Dame Ms. Therese Bilodeau, Private Citizen Mr. Olier Labossiere, Private Citizen Reeve Roy McLaren, R.M. of Louise, Mayor George Kozak, Village of Manitou Mr. Raymond Labossiere, Private Citizen MATTE RS UNDER DISCUSSION: Proposed Resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee, come to order. The hour being 7:30, we will begin hearing the balance of the briefs on the list for today. The lady we asked to hold at 5:30, Ms. Anne McEachern, please. Ms. McEachern. MS. A. McEACHERN: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, lad ies and gentlemen in the aud ience. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak. I speak on my own behalf and all views and opinions contai ned in this brie f are based on personal experiences. I am what I like to call myself, a truly bilingual Canadian.

I speak and was educated in both official languages. I was born and raised in Hull, Quebec. For those of you who don't know where that is, it's across the river from Ottawa. My first tongue is English because my mother spoke only English. Because my father is bilingual, we all went to French school. Our household langua ge remained English until we were all capable of speaking both languages. My family now converses in both languages, going back and forth, without cons idering which language is spoken.

I was fortunate to grow up when I did, because I was always made to feel proud of the fact that I was fluent in both our official langua ges. Even at the age of eight or nine I remember young friends commenting on my good fortune at being bilingual. History was one very important sub ject in our school. Our education system instilled a curiosity about the Canadian past and the program was very detailed in order to satisfy our curiosi ty. I recall the day that I found out that the French had lost, and how sad I was to realize that there had to be a loser. I don't think that I slept that night.

The next day we went into the English takeover. The sense of deep admiration that I had to find out tha t the English would allow the French langua ge to be retained as a second offical language has never quite left me. I remember thinking wow, am I glad to be a Canadian and descendant from these wonderful people. 637 Someone said to my in my early teens, you enjoy history too much, you're not aware of the present, the ideals set out by our forefathers are not necessarily being carried out. I could not believe it.

I lived in a Utopian state, and of course being able to speak both languages, I was not aware of the injustices afforded those who did not. As a young person growing up, I don't ever remember thinking of myself as French or English. I thought of myself as a Canadian. I moved to Manitoba in 1964. Since my education was not completed, I enrolled in an English high school. There was no French high school in Carman at the time and there is not to this day, and su bsequently went on to the University of Manitoba. One of the lasting impressions of high school days was the designation of "new French girl" in school.

That struck me funny because no one had ever referred to me as "the English girl" in school in Hull. Being 16, and not very assertive or secure in my new environment, I said nothing, and so I became a novelty and remained so. Most people were very kind and intrigued by my duality of languages. Although all appeared smooth, it was at this time that I came face to face with that ugly monster, bigotry.

This monster took the form of a sentence, "All Frenchmen should be shipped to Baffin Island." This sentence was repeated over and over to me in high school by one particularly obnoxious young fellow, who found it to be quite funny. lt's sad to admit, but all the wonderful people with positive attitudes do not quite erase that particular negative attitude, and just when you start to feel that people don't mean it, something comes along and reminds you that people really do want the French or English out.

A brochure titled "The Facts about French Language Services" and particularly, and I quote, "B y 19 87, French Language Services will be provided in those areas of the province where th ere is sign ificant

Thursday, 22 September, 1983 demand." I wondered, do they mean Baffin Island? Isn't it funny what will trigger an unpleasant memory? In the first 15 years of my residence in Manitoba, I just went along in my newly created role, until finally no one remembered that I spoke French. As a matter of fact, I would guess that you doubt that I have maintained my French, since very few people discern a trace of a French accent. Je vous assure, Messieurs et Mesdames, que je n'ai pas perdu ma facilite en franc;:ais. Et je vous garantie que je n'ai pas !'intention de la perdre.

About four years ago I began to reintegrate myself into French culture and I also began to seek out opportunities of using my French. At the same time I began introducing more opportunities into our home in order to enable our childr en to learn French. I found that my child ren were not being taught the same history, nor a pride in being part of a bilingual nation. I found that they were both negative about broadening their langu age horizon, because as they put it, it wasn't cool to be bilingual in their environment. As a matter of tact, the kids were dropping out of the French program like flies.

I will admit that it is my responsibility to educate my childr en; I will also admit that I neglected to share with them a lot of their cultural background; and I allowed them, as I allowed myself, the opportunity to fall into the unilingual melting pot. However, I am in the process of trying to rectify this situation and plan on continuing until they at least develop an appreciation for their other birthright language. But it is difficult. There's no help or encouragement.

Two years ago in our town a group of parents held a survey at parents' day in order to determine the percentage of parents who would be interested in having a French program in our elementary school. The result of that su rvey showed over 80 percent acceptance of this idea. Nothing was done to offer French at this level. As a matter of fact, the school claims to have no record of this su rvey. This happened when we were under the impression that we had the right to equality of language. If amendment 23. ?(

b) has the add ition, "·but not including any municipality or school board," you will be giving the school board carte blanche to turn a deaf ear on even a majority consensus. I was always under the impression that this nation of ours was to have equal rights for all, in French and English. And when I lived in the Ottawa area, I felt that we had those rights. But manys the time I'm glad that I am fluent in both languages, because one language does not suffice in this count ry.

There are areas in our country where you could wander aimlessly for days, looking for someone who understood you if you only spoke one of those official languages. I find it very sad to have to make this statement. I doubt any of you would deny it. I would have thought that in 11 6 years, Canada would have progressed much further towards bilingualism. My father and mother managed to produce 10 fully bilingual people in 18 years, and every one of us is reaping the benefits of our bilingualism. Mr. Lyon's ideal of cou rtesy French is what has got this country where it's at right now.

The French-speaking people feel that they don't have to give an inch, and the English-speaking people agree 638 with this philosophy. What we have right now is a chaotic mess. Mr. Pawley's limited access policies only serve to enrage those who want the opportunity to speak both langua ges and pass that on to their children because if we don't reside in your designa ted areas our access will be nil. I am glad that our Constitution allows us equality of language from coast to coast in Canada.

If there's a qu estion as to whether this law is being broken, the arena for deciding these rights goes beyond political parties and philosophies. In this past year, all your bargaining and hara nguing has only served one purpose, and that is to bring all the bigotry and igno rance out into the open where it is being inflamed by the media. Political parties are too worried about preserving their position in government to be unbiased.

Political parties are also too afraid to stand up and admit that the only ulti mate goal that we can be working towards is full bilingualism, maybe not in this generation, but surely before another 10 0 years have elapsed. That's all the written brief that I have. I would like to add to it that I'm glad to have this opportunity to speak. I realize that 1 am the first person today to advocate bilingualism ; I hope I wor.'t be the last person to advocate bilingualism. it had been federal policy. I just got back from spending a week in Ottawa.

The last time I was in the Ottawa area was three years ago, and tha t was pretty close after the beginning of implementation of bilingualism. People were ver)j hostile at that time. They didn't like it; they thought they were going to get something shoved down their throats. Now, when I'm down there I see that people are finally starting to accept it and they are moving in that direction. At one time, there was a lot of criticism that you would only get a federal position if you spoke both languages.

One of the complaints that I heard from a sister of mine who is fully bilingual while I was there two weeks ago was that she had not been given a position even though she was bilingual, and the position had been given to a person who spoke only English. She was very upset about that, because she felt tha t her bi linguality should guar antee her the job over a unilingual person.

Obvious ly, at least in that department, they are now hiring on the basis of qual ifications and realize that it is cheaper to send that unilingual person out and train them in the second language - and that's what was going to happen - than to hire a bilingual person who was not qualified to fill the position. lt has taken a while to get to that point. I have never heard of that happening before, but to me it was a positive step towards bilingualism. I don't know what the solution is in Manitoba, but I have felt personally very hurt over the last year to hear nothing but the French side and the English side.

Where is the Canadian side? Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. McEachern. Questions from members of the committee? Mr. Brown. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank you for a very interesting and well

I Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 thought out brief. lt is something that certainly is food for thought for all of us . You mentioned a couple of things, and I don't want to keep you here too long, but what in your mind is significant demand? We have heard so many versions of sig nificant demand. To some people in the areas that we have been at, it represents one person in a totally Anglo-Saxon society tha t demands French language. That is signi ficant demand, and the French services and French education should be provided for that particular person. What in your mind is sign ificant demand? MS. A.

McEACHERN: I don't know what significant demand is. All I know is that our rights as Canadians should ensure us to either be responded to in French or in English, depending on which langua ge we deem we want to be approached in. I don't know percentages. I'm afraid I can't answer it, I guess. MR. A. BROWN: Those are some of the areas of concern though that we, as legislators, have to be concerned about. What is going to be sign ificant demand, and at what time do we say that French language instruction is going to be justified? it's one area.

Another area in Manitoba is because 55 percent of Manitobans are made up of other minorities other than the French and English language. I myself am trilingual and not one of those langua ges is in the French language, although I can order a crepe suzette and so on in French. I can ouvre le fenetre and fermez la porte and so on, but the thing is this, that the Ukrainian community are just as proud of their heritage, I'm sure, as what you are of your French heritage. The German community is just as proud of their heritage as I'm sure as what you are of your French heritage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question, please. MR. A.

BROWN: Well, Mr . Chairman, I think we had an excellent brief over here and, if you'll just bear with me for a minute, then we'll get down to the question. The question is this, in those commun ities then in some instances in order for them to learn the French language, they will have to learn four languages or three languages, which is going to cause a bit of a problem in the school curriculum, because a good portion of their time is going to be spent at languages. Now, have you given this any consideration at all, Ms. McEachern, as to the problems that some of the other minorities face? MS. A.

McEACHERN: I don't think the other minorities have any problems. The Constitution of our country says that the official langua ges are English and French. Anyone who chose to come to Canada at a later time should have accepted that fact. Because we have never stood up as indi viduals before and demanded our rights in both languages, I can see where it has thrown them in a little bit of a quand ary.

Personal ly, if I came from the Ukraine or Poland or any other country and was not bilingual in French or English, and I could see where one of the factors or one of the people that made up the original settling 639 of this country was being denied their rights, I would have dou bts as to whether 10 years down the road I would be allowed to maintain my own culture and my own language even in my own home. MR. A.

BROWN: Do you think then that if you were of one of the other minorities other than English or French that you would be somewhat at a disadvantage because you would be forced into the situation where you would have to learn either the third or the fourth langua ge? MS. A. McEACHERN: One of the things that has really upset me is this word "forced," and I've heard it over and over and over for years. People really seem to fear an opportunity to gro w. And to me 11 6 years of sitting trying to decide whether we should grow towards learning two langua ges is an awful lot of time wasted debating.

An opportunity for growth we should never pass up. Staving off and putting off getting down to the basic issue, which is let's get down and learn the languages we don't know to make us truly bilingual, isn't going to solve the problem, like to keep putting it off and putting it off. The way the bills and the amendments and everything else is brought out it's almost as if people are being told, you're going to be hurt by learning a second language. Learning is never going to hurt, it's an opportunity for mental growth and we should do that until the day we die.

I think maybe th at's what our forefathers had in their mind, was that Canada would be truly a beautiful country if we were so open-minded and we were so willing to grow and share that we would know two official languages, we would be able to correspond in them, relate in them. Maybe if we were that type of people eventually we would open ourselves to a third, fourth, fifth, sixth language. So forcing, I can't und erstand where asking a person to learn a second language is to hurt them, and the word "force" is a connotation of being hurt, and to me it's not a hurting thing, it's a growing experience. MR. A.

BROWN: One more quest ion , Mr. Chairman. 1t seems to me that we are getting possibly a little bit paranoid about lang uages at the present time in Manitoba, but as I already have mention ed, that some of the people in Manitoba will be in the position that if they want to be able to take advantage of all the job opportunities in Canada, or possibly in Manitoba, for that instance, taking advantage of Civil Service jobs which are about one-third of the employment in Canada at the present time, that they are almost forced, and that's why I am using the reason "forced ".

I would love to speak seven langua ges like Mr. Lansky does, or 13 languages like we have somebody in the Legislature who speaks 13. I would love to be in their particular position, but is not really the primary concern that we have in Manitoba that, rather than langua ges, that we teach people to be able to find their own way in society and pull their own share of the load; is that not more important than just concentrating on languages alone? MS. A. McEACHERN: No. MR. A. BROWN: No. No more questions.

Thursday, 22 September, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Ms. McEachern. You raised a question of concern about that part of the resolution, as the amendment proposes, which excludes from 23.7(1) the municipalities and school boards, and you reflected on whether or not that might affect language of instruction. Are you familiar with the minority language educational right guarantees in the Charter? MS. A. McEACHERN:. No, I am not. HON. R. PENNER: These are sections is in the Charter which, in fact, guarantee language of instruction. Have you had a chance recently to take a look at the resolution which is being proposed?

You did refer to 23.7(1)(b), you have it with you? Would you not agree Ms. McEachern, looking at 23.7(1)(

a) and (

b) that what is being dealt with are services and comm unications from the head offices of certain institutions, and only the head offices or central offices; and the second part of the question, that with respect to the excluded municipalities and school boards, that only excludes the head offices, in terms of services, not with respect to language of instruction? MS. A. McEACHERN: I am missing your point.

I am sorry, at supper myself and a group of friends were discussing the fact that we've drawn our· knowledge of these amendments based on what we've read, and one of our major disappointments today was the fact that we could not ask questions and get clarification on some of these, so, no, I'm afraid I did not understand it the way you're now expressing it, and I'd like you to repeat it, again, for me, please. HON. R. PENNER: Pointing out that 23.7 deals with communications and services from the head offices of institutions, and does not deal with language of instruction. Can you see that now? MS. A.

McEACHERN: Yes, I can. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would caution mem bers that attempts to clarify misunderstandings are not the purpose of questions. I appreciate that Ms. McEachern wanted that clarification, and for that reason did not rule it out of order , but I don't think it should be allowed in any extensive fashion. Further questions, Mr. Penner? Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ms. McEachern, would it be fair to glean from your presentation tor-:ight that, were you to provide an amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, you would simply add

Section 23. 1 and nothing else, that English and French are the official languages of Manitoba, and make the province bilingual? MS. A. McEACHERN: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Seeing none, Ms. McEachern, thank you very much for coming this evening and making your presentation. 640 Next presentation is from Marie Blanche Gobin •. MS. M. GOBIN: Clarification, Gobin is my husb name, I use Oliviero. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MS. M.

OLIVIERO: Je vais parler dans la langue,. vais parler en Canadian, mon droit de naissance. suis la neuvieme generation nee au Canada dans familia des deux cote de mon pare et ma mere el M�h. .. d MR. R. DOERN: I think that there are some � caught off guard and there may be new people -�.i( perhaps you can explain to the audience that they .-. get a translation set or maybe we should take a . minute break. ,:,4i! :.fi MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. For those who eltflll do not have receivers or not familiar with the fact • .. • _· they are available, we'll take a short recess.

Anyoftl wishing to have a receiver so that they can unders� the presentation being made can pick them up be1i1f1 the translation boott.. · � (RECESS) MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee, come to ord er. Madamt Oliviero, please proceed. MS. M. OLIVIERO: Je vais repeter ce que j'ai dis, J'• decide de parler en Canadian, mon droit de naissanct.

Nous sommes la neuvieme generation nee au Canada. aussi bien du cote de Maman que de Papa et je fellcltf le gouvernement du Manitoba qu'on est plus procl'lt de realiser notre reve de plus besoin de se battre pout parler le fran c;;ais et que nos enfants, tous les enfantt du Manitoba, pourraient parler franc;;ais immediatemem en commen c;;ant l'ecole. Pout moi, le fran c;;ais est tellement ;;ne chose qu'on prend pour acquis. Tout • l'heure, dans la municipalite de Grey, on a ete dit qu'on demande jamais des services en fran c;;ais.

A St-Ciaude. la majorite du monde est 95%, alors on parlt continuellement en fran c;;ais. Nos deux conseillers, on a le conseiller a St-Ciaude et Haywood, on leur parlt toujours en fran c;;ais; ce qu'on a a demander, on 1t demande en fran c;;ais et c;;a marche la meme chose que c;;a marche ici aujourd'hui. C'est eux qui font leura rapports au conseil et comme c;;a, le maire dit qui a jamais de rien de demande en fran c;;ais, c'est ce qu'on le prend pour acquis. Alors, je pense peut etre qu'on est trop fran c;;ais a St-Ciaude, qu'on demande pas asse� ... mais certainement qu'on en a besoin.

On devrall continue r, on devrait etre libre de pouvoir parler dant une langue ou dans une autre. Moi, j'ai ete elevee, n01.11 les Canadians, on savait pas qu'est-ce qui etait mieux et the english language was for commerce. C'etall commercial. C'etait pour faire des marches ou c' llll de cette fac;; on qu'on a ete eleve. Alors, je felicite 11 gouvernement de M. Pawley pour etre le plus procht ... on n'a plus besoin de defendre ce qui nous a 6 .. donne. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madame Oliviero . Questions from members of the committee?

I • Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 Mr. Lecuyer. MR. G. LECUYER: Juste une question. J'ai pas tout a fait saisi ce que vous disiez tout a l'heure en faisant reference aux services sur plan municipal . . . ce que VOUS dites, c'est que dans le Village, puisque VOUS etes 95% en franvais, vous avez l'habitude de fonctionner en franvais, alors quand vous vous adressez a vos representants au conseil municipal, vous vous adressez en fran9ais.

La ou le lien est brise, c'est que entre le conseil et les gens du village, c'est la qui a pas le service et la commun ication en franvais, parce que au conseil municipal, on parle seulement en anglais. MS. M. OLIVIERO: Le village de St-Ciaude est incorpore. lis ont leurs qua tre conseillers et maire. Je pense que c'est juste une chose que, la meme chose qui est faite ici aujourd 'hui, je pense que toutes les discussions sont faites en franvais et alors, sur papier, c'est mis en anglais.

Alors, nous, de rural, c'est tout, nos deux conseillers sont franvais et quand ils vont a Elm Creek, la municipalite de Grey, c'est refaire encore la meme chose. Alors definitivement, la municipalite de Grey est franc;:aise. On communique avec, j'en suis certaine que Fannystelle est pareil, mais j'en suis certaine que St-Ciaude et Haywood , c'est totalement, avec nos conseillers, c'est totalement en franc;:ais. C'est tout, au village de St-Ciaude pareil. On paye, on va dire la municipalite, on va payer des dOe, franchement, on les paye en franvais, mais ils sont ecrites en anglais. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lecuyer. MR.

G. LECUYER: Merci, Monsieur le President. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from the members of the Comm ittee? Seeing none, Madame Oliviero, thank you very much for your presentation. Next on our list, Travis McCullough, please. MR. T. McCULLOUGH: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this is long, you may find it boring. But you haven't always been a barrel of laughs to me either, so I ask you to bear with it. I believe that human beings are reluctantly gregarious. We reach out to others only when and because we want to for basically selfish reasons.

There's always this selfish centricity, even in what might, on the surface at least, appear to be the most altruistic of human acts. For example, mission ary work, or martyrdom is gone into willingly because it pleased the indi vidual to do this. Given a choice, we do something or we do not do something, only because it pleases us to adopt that particular attitude. Unl ess we rec ogniz e this huma n trait, this egocentricity and realistically confront it, I believe that as a species, not just Canadian species, but a human species, we are probably doomed to destroy each other in the world anyway.

I believe that there have been leaders in the past and some today who would have been and are perfectly capable of envisioning a world in which they remain the only inhab itants. In a dif ferent vein, Socrates, Jesus, all of the great think ers of the past, have urged people to know themselves. I shall first have then, to know myself. This 641 shall be the intent of this speech then. First to know what I am, what I want, and finally why I feel that the amendments to the provi ncial Lang ua ges Ac t of Manitoba are not to my best interests. I would like to begin by exploring the whole human situation.

Two forces do seem to be at work among mankind. The one we call evil, the other we commonly call good. Let us begin with the latter, good. We associate good with generosity, gentle acts of love. Ah, but that last term, "love", is the one we would do very well to question more closely. Love of one thing might very well be demonstrated in hatred towards another - which is fine when we're talking about weather or road conditions or food preferences. However, it is quite a di fferent matter when we get to talking about people, or groups of people.

Moreover, the psychologists tell us that love of others must be preceded by love of self. And where do I leave off and others begin in this whole process? lt is really a term to be watched, is it not, that word love? The other force that seems to be at work, evil, is commonly associated with selfishness, violent acts and hatred. Back to Square One, I suppose, because of course hatred of one thing might very well be a demonstration of love of another. Even if it is only love of self, which of course is prerequisite to love of anything or anyone else.

Only a politician could find his way profitably through this morass and they do it regularly. The politician succeeds by taking the classical dilemma by both of its horns and vaulting neatly through, finally denying that he even needed the horns to make his vault. In his way his mission is complete and his mystique is intact, in fact, reinforced. At this point I would like to personally welcome the political appointees to this hearing. Love and hate, good and evil, these are terms both absolute and complex. The politician would rather you use less weighty terminology when he confronts people.

The terms like "eff icien cy, needs, rights, goals, objectives, expediency," antiseptic terms that do not have to come to grips with the basic nature of mankind - the basic und erlying "M Eness" which prompts our every act. Of course, the politician would like to pretend that this doesn't exist, because he certainly would not like the masses to know that it also prompts his every act, but it does. Some of you are perhaps familiar, perhaps much more familiar than I, with "The Prince," a book written by an Italian writer - 16 th Century I believe, I stand corrected on that.

In this book, Machia velli, the writer, tells about a fictitious nobleman, already a wealthy man and a politician, who was able to achieve an absolute dictatorship through democratic means. His method was to create issues which so divided the people of the country into selfish little interest groups that, fighting amongst themselves, they no longer presented any sort of unified front in anything.

By creating such a mass of confusion and kindling it now and then with promises of certain rights for one group, but not for another and so forth, the prince set himself up as the only one who could lead the way through the jungle which he had created. Naturally, he was made leader with absolute powers, so a tyranny developed out of a democracy. I would ask you to remember that name, Machiavelli, and his book, "The Prince."

Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 Well, it was in 19 67 or 19 68 - way back in the halycon days of Trudeaumania that I drove from Sydn ey, Nova Scotia. to cast my vote for the next Prime Minis ter of Canada. I had to drive about 15 miles out of Sydney to vote in the vote in the advanced poll because I was moving ag ain. There was some school ho use or something out there where I made my choice. I really didn' t know which way to vote.

There had been a televised First Minister's Conference earlier that year and I had been impressed with one Pierre Elliott Trudeau, (P ET), who sat at the right-hand side of the then Prime Minister Lester Pearson. PET had impressed me with the smooth manner with which he dealt with Daniel Johnson, the then Premier of Quebec, a man who worried me a good deal. He seemed to me to be a man who was a terrible and bitter enemy of anyone who was not French. I have to wonder now whether PET's

summary putdown of Mr. Johnson was real or orchestrated. Anyway, there was another thing that had worried me. I had recently read a magazine

article - and I can't recall the magazine now - a magazine

article in which various politicians: John Diefenbak er, Lester Pearson, and others, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, were asked to name their favourite things: favourite animals, favourite foods perhaps, many favourite things, and their favourite political hero of the past. What the others chose in this last category, I can't now recall; but - and this seemed terribly important to me - the favourite political hero of the past to Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Machiavelli. I won't tell you how I voted that night; I can't tell you that.

I would just say that Machiavelli worried me a good deal more than Daniel Johnson ever did. I am afraid that we have all been had. We have divided ou rselves into little groups, squabble among ourselves about issues - created by the government in Ottawa -c reated, I'm afraid, to foment distrust and divisiveness in Manitoba and, finally, in the rest of Canada. The result may very well be the balkanization, not only of Manitoba, but of all of Canada.

Eventually, we will be so divided into small pressure groups that we will present no uni fied front and like the silly citizens in Machiavelli's "P rince," we will then turn to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and ask him to lead us out of the maze, which he masterminded. We will then give him sweeping powers to lead us out. We will, in effect, have allowed a tyranny to emerge through a democratic proc ess.

Anything that I might inadvertently say here which would further this di visiveness would only be working against true democracy and would be playing directly into the hands of the "prince." I must guard against this with all vigilance throughout the course of this presentation. lt would be a grave di sservice to all of us for me to destroy unwittingly any sort of unity that we may have - and I believe that we have many things about which we are uni fied as Manitobans.

I moreover, certain that none of us want to live in a tyranny, let alone be doubly damned for having been duped into creating that tyranny through a democratic process. So let us all try to remember, even while we discuss real or imagined differences, all those things which we do have in common. The French language issue in Manitoba has divided us unfairly against ou rselves. However, it is only one of many such div isive te chni qu es, engend ered in 642 Ottawa, engendered to drive further wedges between all Manitobans.

Metrification is another such device that comes readily to mind. lt is just another divisive element which has been forced upon us to make us feel like strangers in our own land. However, and perhaps more to the point, the issues of Native rights, Metis rights, all minority group special rights create more and more animosity between us. All of these things will eventually work toward the very divisiveness upon which the "prince's" success depends. You cannot have a society in which everyone has equal opportun itie s if you simu ltaneously award extra rights and extra rewards to certain groups.

Machiavelli's "P rince" knew this and used it to his advantage. Our "prince" also kn ows this and uses it to his advantage. A unified country is a country in which he could not successfully create his tyranny.

For a while, it may all seem rosy, if you're fortunate enough to qualify as a member of one or more of these favourite minority groups. lt has been in the newspapers that the Jewish Council, the Ukrainian people, the Metis, the Chi nese people, the Portuguese community and many other minority groups in Canada have come out in support of this ame�dment to The Official Languages Act, ostensibly because they identify with the French langua ge advoca tes. I wonder jus t how long this unqua lified support will continue.

If the French language can be granted full official status, will not every group want the same eventually? The resulting confusion in laws, statutes, in education, let alone taxes, increasing multiplicity of small and conflicting interest groups with no apparent unity will be the very chaos which will allow the "prince" to flourish in the tyranny which he has created.

I do not like Folklorama; I do not like multiculturalism; I do not like anything that reminds, deli berately and with intent, of the ways in which we are di fferent and which destroys our emerging unity - a thing upon which we are all mutually dependent if we are to avoid falling unwittingly into a tyranny. To move from Manitoba to Canada and the world. I have two visions of the world in the future: One is of a burned out, dead planet, drifting lifelessly through space surrounded by a cloud of radioactive dust, a horrible, dead thing that didn't have to be that way.

The other is of a world where there are no nations whatsoever, and whose inhabitants are truly free to move about, live where they choose and not just or be judged as members of any group, but on each his own individual merit.

In such a world there could be complete unity of purpose, to preserve human life and to enable humanity to go as far as human intelligence could carry him into the areas of outer space, medicine, agriculture, all of those things which the better part of man's nature could accomplish. am, So much of this is prevented today because of the concept of nationhood, because nations divide people into artificial little groups, each group opposed to the other; not because they hate the individual members of this or that group, but because the national policy of their particular nation is to teach distrust of other groups.

Indeed, it sometimes occurs to me that without the handmaidens of blind patriotism and nationalistic fervor, the leaders of those nations would be scarce noticed in the tide of human affairs.

I I I Thursd ay, 22 Septem ber, 1983 So when I speak of unity of purpose in Manitoba, or in Canada, I speak only in terms of relative and limited un ity, a sort of preparity unity for the greater unity of all the peoples of the world, without which I am convinced we cannot hope to survive as a species. The voice of humanity must be heard above the voices of leaders. Differences, lingual or otherwise, must crumble before we can have a province; provinces must crumble before we can have a nation; nations must crumble before we can have, indeed, if we are to have a world at all in the future.

If, as it appears to be the case, these proposed changes in The Official Langu ages Act in Manitoba create more differences among us here, then I think it is sheer foolish ness to implement them. Let us try to enlarge our visions a bit. Being a Manitoba is only a milestone towards being a Canadian; being a Canadian is only a milestone towards being a member of the world commun ity, and that is precisely what our childr en and their childr en must strive toward. I probably won't be around when they have to try to save this world from self-destruction; I don't think many of you will be either.

At least let us give them some sort of decent start. Let us not fill them with the prejudices which we may have, and let us begin by avoidin g this amendment which will only foment further troubles for them. We cannot set them an example of unity by supporting something which will only foster disun ity. Let us cease being dupes to the tyrannical aspirations of the "prince." Let us at least leave what vestiges of unity as we can for our children. Let's at least give the future of the world a chance. If necessary, let us renew our attempts to all learn Esperanto.

Leaders have already proven that they can't succeed in anything but their own self-seeking ambit ions. it's time for the greater voice of humani ty to be heard. Let us begin unity here and spread it throughout the world. Let us not support someting that has been custom designed to create disunity among us. Final ly, to go back to the beginn ing, let us make a really firm effort to know ourselves.

We are capable of good and of evil in our motives, as well as in our actions. lt will take a great deal of soul -searching; however, if we decide that our motives are founded on learned prejudices, blind patriotic fervor, or adherence to the strictures of a small and divisive group, then let us dis card these mot ives for someth ing more open­ minded, something with more scope in time and space than mere prejudice will allow. I remain certain that these proposed changed to The Official Languages Act in Manitoba will create far more disunity and prejudice than it will unity and good will.

They are negative, not positive; let us be positive. Official bilingua lism will only create disun ity, indeed, it already has, else why are we here now? In the world of the future where unity will be a prerequi site to human su rvival our children, and chil dren's children, must practise unity. Let us not do them the disservice of demonstrating divisiveness here. Now, that's my presentation. There are a few things that I have written down, if I may, a few things that have happened since - I've heard of since. Manitoba 23.

Objections to the referendum to oppose the amendment. lt is a step backward , I believe, for democracy to yield to the suggestion that the voice of the majority is a dangerous thing. A referendum is the voice of the majority; a democ racy is the voice of the 643 people, the voice of the majority of the people. Is it to be considered dangerous in a democracy to listen to the words of the majority? it is moreover an insult, a joke, to suggest that the populace hasn't the intelligence to read and understand the words of the referendum. Heavens! I even understood that.

Now, I want you to think that in a democracy I guess the majority rules. Certainly minorities' wishes have to be kept in view, but when you have the opposite, when the minority rules, you have either a tyranny or you have an oligarchy. You don't have a democracy. So I think we have to have a referendum. I think far from being dangerous, it's something that we have to do democratically. I furthermore wonder how much of Manitoba 23's membership - I don't know who they are - profit in dollars and jobs from the concept of multiculturalism, Folklorama. Why are they so secretive about who they are? Finally, Mr.

Serge Jo yal said that settlement through the courts would be tougher than Pawley's answer. I think that isn't so. I think that possibly Quebec fears the status of French in Quebec might be shaken more than the status of English in Manitoba if the thing were to go to the court. That completes my presentation. I'm ready for the questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you , Mr. McCullough. Questions for Mr. McCullough from members of the committee? Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

We certainly enjoyed and found your brief interesting. 1 am looking at Page 6 of your brief, and I gather that it is your view that in an attempt to make the province officially bilingual that other ethnic groups will suffer as a consequence. Rather than everybody being raised up, it will be primarily at the expense of the other multicultur al groups; that they will, relatively speaking, decline. Is that your position? MR. T. McCULLOUGH: My position is not exactly that. My position is that I think we should try to forget our racial backgrou nd. I don't go for ancestor worship.

I believe that my forefathers probably made a lot of mistakes. I believe my own father probably made a lot of mistakes. I don't think that they did everything right in the past. So, Mr. Doern, I cannot answer that question in - well, I can answer it, I'm not trying to avoid it. I would say this: I don't believe that we should foster and support a whole lot of ethnic groups of any sort. I have said that I am opposed to multiculturalism on the grounds that I think it's divisive rather than unifying. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

McCullough, I'm sure that you don't object however to ethnic organizations that fund themselves, or have their own . MR. T. McCULLOUGH: No . MR. R. DOERN: .. . in other words, if you're self­ funding or self-supporting, you wouldn't object to that.

Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 MR. T. McCULLOUGH: No, no, no. For example, in Nova Scotia, they had a lot of bagpipes and things like that, and they dance with kilts on and things, but it was funded by their own. They want to do that and I didn't care. I went down and listened to it once in a while, but it was funded by themselves. lt isn't money out of my pocket for that. No, I think that's okay. MR. R. DOERN: You object to taxpayers' money being given to groups to fund them for cultu ral or other purposes. MR. T. McCULLOUGH: Yes, I do. MR. R.

DOERN: Also, I notice that in your brief you mention - and I think there has been a great deal of confusion about this. Again, I'm looking at Page 6 towards the bottom about newspaper reports that the Jewish Council, the Ukrainian People, etc., etc., support the amendment, but are you aware of the fact that some of these reports are highly erroneous? For example, to say ... MR. CH AIRMAN: Order please, order please. Ques tions for clarificat ion, please, not to provide information. MR. R. DOERN: Well, you'd better hear my question. You should hear my question first then, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr.

Doern, I won't hear your question if you introduce allegations which have not been in the brief, suggesting that reports are erroneous and providing in format ion. Questions are for clarification. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, the brief states that the Ukrainian people support the amendment. My question to Mr. McCullough is: are you aware of the fact that only a small handful of Ukrainian people are supporting that amendment, that in no way reflects general support from the commun ity, in no way? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Doern, the purpose of questions is not to confirm things that you believe or information you bring to the committee. The purpose of questions is to find out what Mr. McCullough thinks. MR. R. DOERN: All right, let me ask him this. Do you think that all the Ukrainian community in Manitoba supports that, or only a portion of it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McCullough. MR. T. McCULLOUGH: For the past six years, I have been teaching in a Ukrainian commun ity, and I feel that they do not support that. However, it has been in the papers that they do. I don't think they do. MR. R. DOERN: That some do. MR. T.

McCULLOUGH: Some must have, because they came out and said that they did. But I don't think they represented all the Ukrainians, that's all. 644 MR. R. DOERN: You also mention that you don't like Folklorama,

whereas I do, but I wonder whether you would appreciate . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orchard, on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: A point of order, what does that have to do with anything? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: Do you recognize that there is a particular value in ethnic or multicultural organizations? That is this, in particular, that . . . HON. A. MACKLING: On a point of order, he's arguing with the witness. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackling, on a point of order. MR. R. DOERN: Arguing with the witness? You haven't even heard what I'm going to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Mr.

Mackling, on a point of order. MR. R. DOERN: Good God! Arguing with a witness? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Mackling, on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this morning, when Mr. Doern was not present, we had a review of the appropriate qu estions to someone who was presenting a brief. The Chair ruled, I think after a review of the submissions that were made, that it is out of order to cross-examine the witness with statements, asking the witne ss to confirm in format ion that is suggested to the witness to be fact. That's the kind of thing new that Mr. Doern is doing.

Now, there are people here waiting to make briefs, to make presentations. They should not have to wait for all of the extraneous argument and suggestions that are put to someone presenting a brief. If they are questions of clarification, something that has been presented in the brief that raises some question, there is some lack of clarity and there is further precision required, that is appropriate. But to suggest facts to the witness and ask him to comment on those or follow that kind of questioning which Mr.

Doern has been pursuing is completely out of order, and is an abuse of the privileges of this committee. M"'!. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments to the Chair en the point of order? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On the same point of order, I don't believe Mr. Macklin g has attended all the hearings; I think I have, and we've been through quite a number of days of hearings and we have quite a few left to go, but I believe that anytime we can get additional information that may be of benefit to this committee from the people that have volunteered I I •

• Thursday, 22 Septem ber, 1983 to come forward, I think we should avail ourselves with that opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doern, to the same point of order. MR. R. DOERN: Yes, I was just wondering if Mr. Mackling could provide me with a list of official or acceptable government questions that I could read to the witness. MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of contributions to a point of order is to guide the Chair. The Chair does not appreciate facetious remarks. Mr. Penner to the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: No, go ahead, make your ruling. MR.

CH AIRMAN: Ob vious ly, to mem bers of the committee, on a brief of such wide-ranging scope, it should not tax the intelligence of members to phrase questions which can cover the un iverse and still seek clarification. The brief is very wide ranging in scope and I think questions for clarification can also be wide ranging in scope without contr i buting to debate, providing new information to the delegation in front of the committee.

I think it's only appropriate, in view of the scope of the brief, to ask members to try to keep questions related to this brief also related to the subject matter before the committee. I think obviously there will be occas ions when members have to, by way of short

preamble, provide information to frame their question, but obviously that information should not be lengthy, the

preamble should not be lengthy and the question should neither be argumentative nor a debate. Mr. Doern, do you have a question. MR. R. DOERN: Yes, I have my last question. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr.

McCullough this, whether he appears to not recog ni ze any value in multiculturalism, and I wanted to ask him this question, whether he would ag ree that in many in stan ces multicultural organizations and ethnic organizations have a particular value and that is to enable immigrants, among many others, many other purposes, but one of the functions and one of the values of ethnic organizations is to help integrate immigrants into our society as well as help people who wish to retain their culture for whatever reasons, that there are values in multicultu ral and ethnic organizations? MR. T.

McCULLOUGH: As long as its intent is to integrate them into the Canadian society and then the world society, yes. But, if it is to put them into silly little groups that want to fight, I really can't see the purpose of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I . MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I thought that was your last question. Mr. Doern. MR. R. DOERN: ... have one more question here. You made reference to Manitoba 23 ... 645 MR. T. McCULLOUGH: Yes. MR. R. DOERN: . . . which is a mysterious phantom organization, and I wonder whether you have any views on what their sources of funding are.

They have spent some $1 0,000 already on advertising to promote their vi ew. I wonder ed whether you had any vie ws or information about their sou rces of funding. MR. T. McCULLOUGH: I have suspicions. MR. R. DOERN: What are these suspicions? MR. T. McCULLOUGH: I suspect that they are people who reap - I think I said it already - profits, their dollars, from, I suppose from Folklorama for one thing, that you apparently like - Folkl orama and multiculturalism. There's a lot of money spent there. Maybe that's their job to go around and do this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR. A. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. McCullough for the amount of time that he has spent in preparing this brief and for the time that he has spent in coming out here and presenting it to us. There is a lot of food for thought in that brief and I believe that even though maybe in some parts of it it was presented in lighter vein, that there is also some very serious thought in that particular brief. My question to Mr. McCullough is this: I would like to know whether he is a direct descendant of either Plato, Socrates or Confucius or Machiav elli? MR. T.

McCULLOUGH: I suppose we all go back to Adam somewhere or another, I don't kn ow. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. McCullough from members of the committee? Seeing none, Mr. McCullough, thank you very much for your very entertaining and informative brief this evening. The nex t name on our list is Adeline Fillion, Community of St. Joseph. MS. A. FILLION: M. le president, membres de la commission. J' aurais un commentaire, avant de commencer a lire ce bref. Vu que je parle au nom des deux groupes, je prefere ne pas avoir a repondre a aucune question.

Because I read this brief in the name of a group, I prefer not having to answer questions. Au nom de la communaute de Saint-Joseph, je desire presenter ce bref sur les amendements bilingu es a la Constitution du Manitoba. Today, Manitoba is given the occasion of fulfilling its cons titutiona l obliga tions in a practi cal , jus t and economical way. We Manitobans, whose first language is French, are offered government services in our maternal tongue.

Provi sions of Fr ench Langua ge Services will be provided in provincial departments and agencies in designa ted areas that have a significant numb er of French -speaking Manitobans requesting them. The translation of certain laws will be extended over a 10 -year period as stated by the Societe franco-

Thursday; 22 September, 1983 manitobaine and our Pr ovincial and Federal Governments. In 1867, Canada became a bilingual nation, and in 1870, Manitoba joined Confederation as a province with two legally recognized languages - English and French. All previous constitutions affirmed the dual nature of its nationality, a founding principle of our country. Our immigrants accepted the country as such when they became citizens of Canada. Through the years, in Manitoba, we became a minority, and our government this allowed French completely as far back as 18 90.

Our parents, particularly, can remember the 1916 episode and we have to bear the tragic results of those unconstitutional laws. it's not that our fathers didn' t feel the need of the English language, but not at the expense of their maternal tongue. The restitution of French rights is

an act of justice, good citiz enship and the pledge of go od faith, particularly so because our language will not be forced on anyone. When have you seen a majority group deciding the fate of a minority. After this issue, which minority will be affected and for what reason? lt shouldn't be a popular vote on who likes French and who doesn't. Since the introduction of French and Immersion Schools, French has gained immense popularity and I can personally say, not at the expense of the English language. Let's not forget that the English language is compulsory in Manitoba's educational system.

Our scholars educated in French schools for their primary and secondary education can well adapt themselves in our un iversities, be it Manitoba, Brandon or specific careers taught totally in English. We owe a debt of gratitude to our predecessors, who in spite of numerous difficulties and ceaseless struggles, preserved for us our language and our culture. Their courage and determination in pursuing their ideals provided us with a legacy that we can be proud of. Thank you for your attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The next name on our list is George Henderson. Mr. Henderson, please. Mr.

Henderson, the Member for Rhi neland didn' t catch your name. He's wondering if he's seen you before. Please proceed. MR. G. HENDERSON: Mr. Ch airman, hon ourable members of the committ ee and everybody in the audience. I would like you to know that I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to say a few words as a private citizen. I was very hesitant to do this and I didn' t want to do it.

But since the government decided to have hearings, I felt it my obligation to say what I thought as a citizen, and I realize that you people on the committee and the present government has got a very tough decision to make now as to how you will handle this and the best way out. Because I, like some of the other speakers, do not want to see more division within Manitoba. I have the feeling that this is going to cause more hard feelings in Manitoba. I must say that I'm glad I came down today though because I heard several very good speakers, people like Mr.

McCullough, that really have quite a knowledge 646 of an awful lot of things and it was very interesting to hear them and others. Having said that, I sympathize with the people on the committee and the present government for what they are up against. I must also say that I think they are largely to blame for it, because of many things. One thing is the way they met secretly with the Franco­ Manitoban Society and the Federal Government and drew up what they considered was something that everybody had to accept without hearings and put it through the Legislature in a hu rry. In fact, Mr.

Penner told them, as I read in the paper - and I didn't take Hansard all the time, although I read it occasionally - it was quite often said that they had to pass it the way it was and that it couldn't be changed. You know, it had to be done by the 31 st. lt reminded me of the constitutional debate where Trudeau said: But if the people of England and, in particular, the Queen didn't like it, she could hold her nose and pass it. That was just about the way it was going. The present government were going to do it; they had drawn it up in secrecy and the people had to accept it.

I think they got themselves off to a very very difficult start. I think by doing it the way they have, they have actually stir, ad up more animosity than I had ever thought would happen and I can see nothing but it getting worse. I can't see it going now. I see the present change as being very very costly, too, because they talk about all of the translations and all the different people in different offices that have to be bilingual, printing things in both langu ages on all occasions whether there is need for it or not - not being practical about it at all.

In communities where there is hardly any French, to think that at certain times we'll have to have two French people in there or bilingual people in there. I also see that this here fact, that by having to have bilingual people in some of these offices where they aren't needed, is really going to hurt people in the Civil Service. On the lighter vein, it reminds me of the joke they I tell about an area where they had a swimming pool, and one man was attending one day with his children and he was watching the children swimming. One youngster was drowning and the lifeguard didn' t go to pull him out.

He yelled to the lifeguard that somebody was drowning, to go and pull him out, but the lifeguard didn't go. So the man rushed in, in his clothes, and pulled him out.

As soon as he got the youngster out, he went over to the lifeguard and said, "Why didn't you save him?" He said, "I can't swim." Well, he said, "How did you get the job?" He said, "I'm bilingua l." So it seems to me that on certain occasions people will be getting jobs because they're bilingual whether I they're really qualif ied or not. lt seems to me that when Manitoba was first created as a province there was about 50150 percent of French a11d English and maybe other ethnic groups to some extent. lt seemed very logical to me that it should be services in two languages.

By what I've heard here today there seems to be a bit of a difference. Some say that English and French were to be the languages of the province and others say that we're to be declared officially bilingual by that. Now, it seems to me, I wish this was straightened out so that ordinary people like myself would just know what the act of 1870 did say, because I'm not against

Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 giving services to the French people. In fact, I feel like bending over backwards to give services to any ethnic group that are a mino rity. I ho nestly feel that in Manitoba, maybe I'm naive, but I feel that this has been done. I feei that where we have municipal people and somebody comes in that's French, they're given the best of treatment and he could come in with somebody else to talk for him and in some cases municipalities hire people that are bilingual, just like we heard today about the R.M. of Grey.

They're very anxious to give services in both langua ges and to both people. But this can be done without making it officially bilingual where we've got to have RCMP, all government boards and all commissions and things like this where there are people who are bilingual. So I just see this thing as causing more problems and we have enough problems now. lt seems to me that we've had Trudeau's form of bilingualism and biculturalism that's divided. There's no doubt in the world that it's caused hard feelings in Manitoba.

Now we're going to have Manitoba's form of bilin gualism and I'm telling you that there are an awful lot of the other ethnic groups that are beginning to think that, you know, for 6 percent of the population, this is pushing too hard. There's just no need of it. You may wonder why some people talk about the western group, which are predominantly not French, is more or less talking at times about separating from the eastern group. it's things like this that cause this. People in the west, they say, well, why should we set up this?

We've got stuff we can sell to the rest of the world like our wheat, our oil, our lumb er and our potash and they will take our wheat and things we have to sell. I don't see why we should set up with more of this stuff pushed on to us from the eastern people. I don't just really mean to say predominantly French or all French but where it's pushed on us, but generally speaking, as you all know, that the bulk of the members in the government are from Que bec and they're French.

So I would just hope that somewhere or another that this committee and the present government could find a way out of this in such a way that they do not go for making Mani toba wha t we could call official bilingualism in a way that's going to hurt the people. For goodness sake, give them all the service they need, all the education they need - and for the ethnic groups if they want it.

If the people want it and they vote this way, and they are spending their own tax dolla rs that's all right, but to be having it more or less a forced-type bilingua lism is something that I can't see any sense in and I just see it as dividing the country more. I really hope that you can find some sensible way out of it that won't cause more problems. That's all I have to say and I'll try and answer any questions that you might want to ask. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, G. Lecuyer: Thank you, Mr. Henderson for your presentation. Any questions? Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Henderson, I just want to deal with one part of your brief in which you were critical of the government, as you have of course the right to do, and you referred to secret meetings. On what do you base that serious allegation? 647 MR. G. HENDERSON: I based that on the fact that I have read about it.

The Franco-Manitoban Society met with the Manitoba people and the federal people - it wasn't secretive as far as they're concerned - but they went ah ead and th ey dr afted wha t th ey thought Manitoba should accept in the way of bilingualism, and they did it without consultation and it was done, and before it was talked about amongst other people, it was more or less handed to us. HON. R. PENNER: Well, as a former politician, I believe you were an ML A, you may be still a politician, I take it you are someone who reads the newspapers fairly regularly? MR. G. HENDERSON: Yes, I do. HON. R.

PENNER: You must have read accounts of the fact that, indeed, these discussions were taking place as early as July of 19 82, you read those? MR. G. HENDERSON: Yes, but people weren't aware. They weren't told of the discussion that was going on with this here closed group. Incidental ly, the Franco­ Manitoban Society is a very small amount of the French population. HON. R. PENNER: it may be. lt may be that they only have 600 members and they may represent 60,000, we don't kn ow. MR. G. HENDERSON: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: Nor is it our duty to inqu ire on that, nor could we.

But we'll just deal with these questions I'm asking you. So you recognize having read about the fact that this political solution to the legal case was being negotiated, you are aware of that? MR. G. HENDERSON: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: Right. And did you also read - you said you've read Hansard from time to time - that a draft of this proposal was sent to the Leader of the Opposition in December of 19 82? MR. G. HENDERSON: That a draft that you have with the Franco-Manitoban Society was sent to the Leader of the Opposition in 19 82? HON. R. PENNER: In December of 19 82, December 17 th, to be exact. MR. G.

HENDERSON: No, I didn't. HON. R. PENNER: You didn't? MR. G. HENDERSON: I didn't, I'm sorry, but I didn't. HON. R. PENNER: Fine. And therefore you . . . MR. G. HENDERSON: But if it was, that was the first that it surfaced, I guess we could say. HON. R. PENNER: But you see, you used the term about it being secret, and now you tell me that for the

Thursd ay, 22 Septem ber, 1983 first time you realize that the Leader of the Opposition had this in December of 19 82, is that secret? MR. G. HENDERSON: No, if he had it . . . Was it exposed in the paper? HON. R. PENNER: He had it as the Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. HENDERSON: Well, I'm not in that close touch, but I don't remember of read ing in the paper that that copy was available at that time, and I don't know if I could have got a copy of it or not. I presume that I couldn't by what I had heard. HON. R.

PENNER: Are you aware that in January of 1983, at a public meeting, the full details were discussed at a meeting of the Societe franco-manitobaine and reported in the paper? MR. G. HENDERSON: Oh, yes, when you get back to'83, yes. HON. R. PENNER: Janua ry of'83. MR. G. HENDERSON: Yes, in the early part of January,'83. HON. R. PENNER: Not a very well kept secret, was it? MR. G. HENDERSON: Well, it sure had been to that time, I thought. And then it was more or less - and you were the man that said it. HON. R. PENNER: Said what? MR. G.

HENDERSON: You as much as said that this was like this, they couldn't amend it, or they couldn't start fooling with it or else it would be delayed and all this. it was just about like "take it like this, we're not going to have any hearings or anything else,'' - and you were the man that did that. HON. R. PENNER: Maybe, we're not here to discuss what I said in May or June of 1983 about the agreement. You made the statement that it was secret and I am pointing out to you that it wasn't very much of a secret. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, through you to Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson, when it comes to the changing of a constitution - I believe you had some time in the Manitoba Legislature - do you recall any time when there were proposals made to change the Constitution during your time in the Legislature or any time before that, when you were interested in politics? MR. G. HENDERSON: No, I do not remember of any talk like that about changes to th e Mani toba Constitution when I was in there. 648 MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Henderson, would you consider a proposal to change a constitution as being a very very serious proposal that should require a great deal of study and consideration before any decisions are made? MR. G. HENDERSON: After what happened on the Canadian Constitution I'm leery of changes to any constitution, and particularly a constitution that we have to have the federal people and the Senators and the House of Commons before we can do any further changes.

I am very wary of that and this part of entrenchment of those things that this would have to happen; that we, as a province, can't control ourselves or legislate it the way we want; that we always have to go through Ottawa and get it through the House of Commons and that. I'm just not in favour of that and I can't see that happening, and that's one of the things I don't like - the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights in the Constitution so that we have to go through the federal people. This is something I'm very strongly against. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Henderson. Mr.

Hencl'lrson, would you consider it a fair plan of action if a government was attempting, or considering, changing a constitution to have an all­ party involvement in any proposals to change? Would that be a way to begin such changes? MR. G. HENDERSON: Yes, I would. I see this as a very touchy issue and I think it's one that people on both sides of politics should have tried to have handled with the utmost of care because it is so easy to hurt people.

That surely isn't what we want to do, and I think that possibly if they had tried to work out something together that was more where we could have common ground and not have got into the hassle we have in the present Legislature that would have been a very good thing. MR. CHAIRMAN, A. Anstett: Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson, you said that you read Hansard on occasion and you follow the news and try and keep informed on some of these things.

Do you know of any occasions when it was reported in the news, or you read about it in Hansard, where the Government of Manitoba and indeed all members of the Legislature, or representatives of all the parties in the Legislature, sat down together with the Federal Government and the Franco-Manitoban Soci ety, or any other group, to discuss this matter before it was introduced in the Legislature? MR. G. HENDERSON: No, I never heard of it, nor read of it. MR. H. GRAHAM: Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by any members·? Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Henderson, Mr. Penner seemed to be upset with your phraseology of the secret agreement. I •

Thursd ay, 22 September, 1983 The negotiations that had apparently taken place were between Societe franco-manitobaine - Mr. Penner has ind icated that he does not know and furthermore it do es not matter whether the Societe fran co­ manitobaine, as an association, represents the views of the Franco- Manitoban commun ity at large in Mani toba.

Would you consider whether the SFM represents Franco- Manitoban opinion in general would be im portant if you are going to negotiate a constitutional amendment on lan guage with that group, as to know whether they represent the majority opinion of the Franco-Manitoban community? MR. G. HENDERSON: Well, I would think it's a very important thing to them that they're representing at least all the French people and I really don't feel they are. They might be representing the people that belong to their group but I don't think they're representing all the French people.

I happen to know several French people around Somerset, in that area, and I hear them saying, "Why did we get all this trouble stirred up? Everything was going good; we weren't having any trouble. We were getting our services in French." We mixed with you French people and we had a great time together. There really wasn't any of that animosity and I don't know - to answer your question - if there was ever a time when there was any get-together of these people before anything happened. I don't know whether the Franco­ Manitoban Society is really representing their own group, let alone the French group.

I wonder sometimes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members of the committee? Seeing none, Mr. Henderson, thank you for presenting your brief. On behalf of members on both sides of the committee, we'd like to thank you for continuing your interest in public affairs. MR. G. HENDERSON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Next on our list is Mr . Peter Francis. Mr. Francis, please. MR. P. FRANCIS: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate this opportunity to express my personal views and I look forward to any questions that the comm ittee members may have to ask of me.

I urge the go vernment to adop t the propo sed resolution to amend

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act. There are numerous specific reasons why this is the most appropriate course of action. I would, however, like to restrict my comments to two alternatives that will result in a decision to this issue. As a citizen, I appreciate this opportunity to address the committee.

Nevertheless, I question why there was a need to establish a committee in the first place; I, as a voting citizen, am quite content to place my confidence in the dul y elected government and respect their responsibil ity and obli gation to perform the functions they were elected to carry out and to show the leadership that the people of Manitoba deserve. lt is unfortunate that the current administration has been delayed in carrying out the adoption of this proposed resolution. 649 Specifically, I am presenting this brief to air my concerns and to add my voice in support of a "Ma de in Manitoba" solution. lt has been both irritating and frustrating the past months to observe the obstructionist tactics of a numb er of the members of the Legislature. lt is my belief that some are acting on the basis of a "popular politics" approach and ignoring constitutional principles and some basic common sense.

"P opular politics" and government by referendum have no place or value in contributing to the crucial concerns of the protect ion of mino rity rights and the de bate of constitutional principles. A public debate of the language rights of a group of citizens introduces many contradictory, acrimonious, and confusing opinions. lt would be my hope that the appropriate decision-makers of this debate, that is, the members of the Legislature of this province, would set aside their partisan one-upmanship politics and reflect upon and focus on the key elements of this issue. There is a right thing to do.

I believe there's a wise thing to do. Why has a legally and morally right thing to do becme bandied about like a political football? I don't see it as an NDP /Con servative issue. I see it's an issue of what is legally and constitutionally right or wrong. I would ur ge th ose opposed to this proposed resolutio n to strip away their personal and organizational concerns, examine the salient elements of this issue, and do what is right: protect the integrity of The Manitoba Act of 1870 by adopting the proposed resolution to amend

Section 23. Either of two courses of action will result in this issue being settled: the passing of the proposed resolution, or the requirement resulting from a Supreme Court judgment in the Bilodeau case. The option of no change to the status quo just does not exist. The rationale for entrenchment of French language rights, either by the proposed resolution or by the Supreme Court judgment, is obvious. The Manitoba Act of 1870 can be considered a "contract" with the majority French language group of the day.

A contract has obligations attached to it and French Language Services represents one of those obligations. The large immigration of businessmen and settlers from Ontario and Britain the 1870s and 1880s resulted in dis satisfaction with the "contract" and further resulted in the unconstitutional legislative action of the next 30 years. If a contract is to be tampered with, or renegotiated, the willing co-operation of the key parties is essential. Resolving the cu rrent issue, in one way or another, will address the wrong that has been committed and will restore the spirit of the 1870 act.

What exists now in Manitoba is a type of entrenched unil ingualism; entrenchment of French language rights, while obviously a fear of some, will go a long way in restoring the spirit of The Manitoba Act that brought Manitoba into Confederation. Additionall y, the protection of minority rights is crucial to this issue. Many besides the French-spe aking population of Manitoba are concerned onlookers in observing how the elected representatives of this province are willing to treat minorities. Are rights to be extended as a cou rtesy?

Will the rights be altered in times of prosperity and good intentions, as well as in times of economic pressure and uncertainty? The measur e of any go vernment and any system of government may well be how it treats its minorities.

Thu rsday, 22 Septem ber, 1983 There is ample legal and constitutional obligation to entrench the language rights of French Manitobans and present an exemplary case, for all of Canada, of the concern for the protection of minority language rights. While it is my belief that, whichever course of action ensues, constitutional guara ntees will result for the French-speaking people of this province, I sincerely hope and urge that this can be accomplished by adopting the proposed resolution. There are several reasons why this is preferable to relying upon a Supreme Court decision.

First of all, the proposed amendment will put an end to this issue. The guidelines can be made clear and the results can be predictable. The amendment would forestall further legal action and provide a constitutional framework for the mutual culturally prosperous co­ existence of the two founding groups of this province and country. A Supreme Court decision will both take the decision out of the hands of Manitobans and merely answer one question. The answer to that question may be far less favourable to the legal and the economic status of Manitoba.

Additionall y, a Supreme Court decision will not likely provide an all-encompassing framework of the constitutional requirements of the province. Further court challenges, in a host of areas, may be required to detail the specific extent of French Language Services in Manitoba. That has the potential of being costly, lengthy and acrimonious. Second ly, a legislated agreement in Manitoba has the benefit of receiving declared financial support from the Federal Government.

The limited extent of French Langua ge Servic es as outli ned in the proposed resolution further argues for economic savings as opposed to an uncertain Su preme Court settlement. Surely the proverbial bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Common sense argues it is; financial sense may make it imperative. In conclusion, I urge the government to settle this issue quickly by adopting the amendment. Establish the constitutional requirement that has existed in law for 11 3 years. Protect the integrity of our Constitution.

The long delay and the uncertainty of action has allowed the issue to be muddied, as it turned into a partisan political issue replete with obstructionism, uncertainty, ignorance of our history and a deplorable lack of concern for the Constitution. it is well past time to act. Do what is legally and constitutionally proper. Set aside the partisanship and make a qua lity decision by passing this proposed resolution. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Francis. Questions for Mr. Francis by members of the committee? Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Francis, could you ind icate what your perception is of the original intent of

Section 23, as written in The Manitoba Act of 1870? MR. P. FRANCIS: I may not be clear with all of

Section 23 of the original act. it is my impression that the majority of people in Manitoba at the time of Confederation were in excess of 50 percent; the majority of the population with English and Native population 650 in the second and third place. lt is my assumption that the intention of the Aiel Provisional Government was to introduce Manitoba as a bilingual province. MR. D. ORCHARD: If I might help you, since you are not familiar with

Section 23, as written in 1870, it provided - and Mr. Chairman, I'll go by your guidance. Would it be appropriate to read it to Mr. Francis at this time, or is that an abuse of the committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: No objection. MR. D. ORCHARD:

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act reads as follows in the 1870 Manitoba Act: Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Ho uses of the Legislature, and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person, or in any pleading, or process in, or issuing from, any court of Canada established under The British North America Act, 1867; or in, or from, all or any of the courts of the province. The Acts of the Legislature shall be printed and published in both these langua ges.

Does it not seem clear from Sec-tion 23 that the intent was to have English and French available for use in the Legislature and the courts? MR. P. FRANCIS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Would you interpret that it intended it to be used anywhere else? MR. P. FRANCIS: No, I wouldn't, but I'm not speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then, Mr. Francis, that brings us to the question - you support the amendment - are you familiar with the amendment as proposed by the government? MR. P. FRANCIS: Not word by word, but in general, yes. MR. D.

ORCHARD: And are you familiar with the fact that the amendment does provide for an expansion of French Language Services to head and central offices I of any department of the government; head or central office of a court, quasi judicial, and we can go down the list? In other words, it is expansion beyond simply the Legislature and the courts. MR. P. FRANCIS: Yes, I am aware that that is the intention. I wasn't aware that it would be considered, and I'll accept your

interpretation for this moment that it was an extension. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Francis, that is not my

interpretation. That is in fact what it is, and that is what the government indicates that it is, that it is an extension of French Langua ge Services in the Provinc e of Manitoba. MR. P. FRANCIS: That it goes beyond the Legislature and the courts?

I • • Thursday, 22 September, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, Mr. Francis. That is what the government intends to do with their amendment, is to take it beyond the courts and the Legislature, as was enacted in 1870. MR. P. FRANCIS: To other government institutions? MR. D. ORCHARD: That is correct. Now, Mr. Francis, you indicated that the Provisional Government of Louis Riel established the Constitution.

Had they envisioned the Manitoba Government using bilingual services throughout, would they have restricted their constitutional provision in 1870 on language to the courts and the Legislature only if they had intended it to go elsewhere? MR. P. FRANCIS: I can't answer that, I don't kn ow. MR. D. ORCHARD: Fair. I don't think anyone can answer that, Mr. Francis.

Do you think that it is appropriate at this time, when as you 've mentioned, when the 1870 Act was passed that the French-English balance by any record that is close was 50150, th at to day we should expand signific antly beyo nd wha t was provided in 18 70, provision of French services in the Pr ovi nce of Manitoba? Do you think that's fair and equitable? MR. P. FRANCIS: Well, yes, I do consider that it would be fair and equitable to extend it to government institutions, head offices, as you speak of.

We're certainly not living in 1870 any more and the use of government institutions is far more extensive than it was then. it is only a natural extension, if that is in fact the case. MR. D. ORCHARD: Even in view of the fact that the population demographic has changed dramatically from 1870 to 19 83? MR. P. FRANCIS: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Do you believe that that right was given and enshrined, and the intent of it was intended in 1870 and should be expanded today? MR. P.

FRANCIS: The intent in 1870 perhaps could not conceive of what exists now, as far as government institutions, but I would expect - I personally would accept that that intention is sensible. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Francis you've urged - and without a copy of your brief I'm paraphrasing and I may not be exactly correct and please take the liberty to correct me if I'm wrong - you ind icated that those who oppose the bilingual amendment, the amendment to

Section 23, should strip away their personal and organizational involvement in this and look at it more object ively. You provided that advice to those who oppose it. Would you have the same advive to those who are supporting it? MR. P. FRANCIS: I didn't suggest their involvement, I don't believe, that was not the word that I used. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I thought you said the people should strip away their perso nal and 651 organizational involvement for those who are opposed; I may have heard that wrong. lt will be recorded in Hansard, and of course we can check it if it's not available. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps Mr. Francis can clarify that. I believe he has a copy of the brief. MR. P. FRANCIS: Yes, I'm looking, sorry. "Their personal and organizational concerns." MR. D. ORCHARD: I'm sorry. MR. P. FRANCIS: Personal and organizations concerns. MR. D. ORCHARD: Would you provide that same advice to those who are supporting the amendment, as well? MR. P. FRANCIS: I come before this committee to present what I feel is a concern, a constitutional concern, a concern for the protection of minority rights. I think that is central and focused on the issue itself.

The concerns of others, who perhaps extend to multiculturalism, I don't think that's a relevant issue to talk about regarding this specific issue. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, then I won't pursue that any fu rther, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Francis, you urged us as members of the committee - and maybe I'm incorrect - but you urged us to abandon our partisan positions on this in the Legislature. I assume, since you agree with the New Democratic Party amendment, you must be giving that message to the Progressive Conservative Party to abandon their - what appears to you to be a partisan opposition to the amendment. Is that a fair

interpretation of what you said? MR. P. FRANCIS: I'd like you to run that by me, again, please. MR. D. ORCHARD: You, I believe, ind icated in your brief that we should abandon our partisan positions, our partisanship in this issue, and work for something which is good. Since you agree with the New Democratic position on it, obviously the message must be for the members of the Progressive Con servative Caucus to abandon their critique of this amendme::1t. MR. P.

FRANCIS: The intention of my comment was for those obstructing the issue at hand to focus on the issue rather than to bring in any extraneous information and material that really does not contribute to an appropriate discussion of the constitutional amendment at hand. MR. D. ORCH ARD: Mr. Chairman, I am still no t comfortable as to whether you were directing those comments at myself and other members of my party in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition whether we were introducing extraneous material, etc., etc. MR. P. FRANCIS: I was not focusing just on the members of the opposition.

I think, as I indicated in another position, that this cannot be considered just an ND P-Conservative fight, that there are Conservatives

Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 favouring an amendment of this type, or at least favouring entrenchment of French rights. There are obviously current NDP members that are not favouring such entrenchment, so we have a mixture of people on both sides. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Then does not that draw you to the conclusion, when there's a mixture of people on both sides, that there is a legitimate avenue to have this dis cussed in full and to point out the errors and omissions in the proposed amendment as one sees them; to point out to the government, as a number tonight have done that the amendment process has been divisive in the commun ity, has raised up old shibbeloths and anxieties that, by and large, didn't exist until the last six months? MR. P.

FRANCIS: it was my impression that in the summer, I guess - I don't have the date in mind - but the reason for establishing this committee could be argued to have a public forum, to have people present information to the committee. I am not satisfied with the way that the committee was established, or under the conditions in which it was established. lt was my

interpretation - and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong - that it was a last ditch effort to move out of the previous Session and get into a recess and into the next Session. I may be incorrect there, but it didn' t seem that it was particularly a reason because of the desire to listen to what the public had to say. I menti oned extreme irritation at the idea of a referendum and I think, although we are certainly several steps away from a referendum by public hearings, the same taint of popularity in the public arena does sift through, as it most certainly would in a referendum.

A referendum is absolutely no way to talk about an issue like this and, in fact, very few issues perhaps. I'm not particularly satisfied that public hearings are going to be the answer either. MR. D. ORCHARD: Are you saying from your answer as to why we're here today that the government was basically dragged kicking and screaming into going throughout the province to hold public hearings? MR. P. FRANCIS: No, I'm not saying that, but perhaps I could be enlightened upon that issue. MR. D.

ORCHARD: What other process should one in gov ernment use to un dertake a constitutional amendment, other than the one the government has used right now? I believe in the first of your brief you ind icated that you had every confidence in this amendment, that the government was duly elected, hence has the confidence of the people, therefore should not be obstruc ted in passing this amendment. In your opinion, Mr. Francis, did the government get elected to pass this kind of an amendment, th is cons titutional amend ment to the language? MR. P.

FRANC IS: I believe the government was elected to carry out the wishes of the people of Manitoba and be informed of those wishes by the opposition, as well as members of their own benches, to be aware of those 652 wishes through various committee sittings of members of the Legislature. lt takes some time, I recognize, to pass bills through the House. I cannot see any reason why all of the concerns cannot be raised in that way. MR. D. ORCHARD: In your opinion, do you believe the majority of Manitobans favour this amendment? MR. P.

FRANCIS: I don't particularly feel comfortable with respo nding to the ques tion, becaus e I am responding to what really is a referendu m-style question. I don't think that a large group of Manitobans wou ld su pport through a referendum the type of proposal that has been presented, because I don't think a large proportion of Manitobans are comfortable yet with the issue or have not concerned themselves with the issue. Perhaps the elements of the 19 60s, after the B and B Commission, will come back where the idea of French being shoved down our throat will once again be an element of a debate.

I think what has happened previously to the current administration was a far cry from what should occur. I don't think the change to the laws of the province were done quickly enough. I don't know if that's, in a phrase, the type of "creeping biling ualism" that goes so slowly that it never gets anywhere. I'm happier with enacting an amendment of this nature. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Given that the present government was not elected having this amendment or any mention of it in their election platform; and given that you don't believe the majority of people would agree with this amendment right now, in your opinion, should the government proceed with it faced with those two rather obvious detrimental facts facing a democr atically ­ elected government? MR. P. FRANCIS: Well, it is apparent to me that the government was left with an unsettled issue from the George Forest case.

That had been dragging on, and the Bilodeau case that is now before the Supreme Court is some thing that has pushed the government into act and act now. I would rather them do it than the Supreme Court do it. Perhaps if the previous method of change had been somewhat faster - I don't wish to comment on the sincerity of that change, but it did seem to be slow. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Francis, I believe you indic ated in your last answer that it was because of the Forest case and the Bilodeau case that the government was forced to enact this amendment. Not correct? MR. P.

FRANCIS: I'm sorry if I used the word "force," but certainly we are well advised to consider those issues, those cases. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well advised by whom, Mr. Francis, when cons titutiona l lawyers indica ted th ere was probably greater than a 90 percent chance that Bilodeali would lose his case in the Supreme Court? MR. P. FRANCIS: I recognize that is your personal point of view, as reported in the Pembina Times yesterday with many other comments by yourself on

Thursday. 22 September, 1983 the French Language Services of this province. I am not convinced that most constitutional lawyers would side with that opinion. I am not a lawyer. I don't know if you are. MR. D. ORCHARD: Are you fam iliar with any constitutional lawyer's opinion that said there was a great danger to the province in the Bilodeau case? MR. P. FRANCIS: I have listened to news reports, of course, over the last several weeks. I have been acquainted with Dean London's comments from the Un iversity of Manitoba. I guess, perhaps, those are what I would be considering. MR. D.

ORCHARD: What were those opinions, if I may ask? MR. P. FRANCIS: Certainly Dean London of the Law Faculty of the Un iversity of Manitoba in the interview that I watched him for five or 10 minutes on CBC Television several weeks ago was quite adamant that the Supreme Court judgment may, in fact, really be chaotic. MR. D. ORCHARD: Certainly, if the Supreme Court decided in favour of Bilodeau, it would have been chaotic; that is black and white. Did Mr. London indicate whether he thought Mr. Bilodeau would be successful? That's the point. MR. P. FRANCIS: lt was my impression that Mr.

London suggested that the government's action was a wiser course of action than allowing the Supreme Court to decide. MR. D. ORCHARD: No further questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: No, I think Mr. Francis has answered very well and has clarified. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Plohman. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Jus t to follow up on the di scussion that was taking place with regard to the divisiveness that has taken place on this issue. lt was mentioned by Mr.

Orchard and others that there certainly has been a great deal of divi siveness caused, I guess, they have alleged, by the amendment that is proposed. I think you, Mr. Francis, put a lot of faith in the elected representatives to show leadership and to do what is right. Do you feel that the partisan politics that you talked about, the sta lling, the fili bus teri ng, the obstructing, the pushing for a referen dum by people like Russ Doern and by the opposition has contributed a great deal to the divisiveness that exists? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orchard, on a point of order. Order please. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I think from time to time you have intervened where questions have been 653 rhetorical, inflammatory, argumentative in nature. I don't recall, at any particular time, the opposition has made an official call for a refer endum. Withdr aw th at statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Not only would I ask Mr. Plohman to consider withdrawing the statement, but I would ask him not to provide information to the witness and then ask the witness to comment on the information he provides. Questions should be for clarification. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. The person making the presentation, Mr.

Francis, has referred to the fact that there have been partisan politics played, and I grouped all of those and referred to Russ Doern, and the opposition, not meaning that all of those were attributed to the opposition. I have to clarify that, and I accept that clarification, but the matter was raised by Mr. Francis. I am saying, I ask simply whether he feels this has contributed to the divisiveness that is present, that is being alleged by the opposition here today; that it has been causing this divis iveness in the commun ities and in the province. MR. P.

FRANCIS: The divisiv eness that I see has in fact come from, I think, a lot of people on both sides of the House, or on both sides of the issue, that have raised extraneous com ments, presented ideas of referendum, talked about, as we've listened to earlier speakers today, that certainly the majority should rule in a situation. I think the referendum is probably the height of that travesty that has taken place, and I think a government abd icates its responsibility and essentially succumbs to mob rule when we talk about referendums.

So if that responds to your question, I believe that obstructionist tactics, fili bustering and a variety of other media efforts has created unpleasant feelings in both communi ties, French and English, in Manitoba. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Just one other question, it has been alleged that in 19 79, when there were extensions of French services by the previous government, that the reason there was no di visiveness at that time was the way that it was done, as opposed to the fact that the opposition at that time did not filib uster and stall on those issues and was not opposed to the extension of those services. MR.

CH AIRMAN: Or der please. The honourable member is providing information again. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, whether Mr. Francis would feel that is the reason that the divi siveness was not there in 19 79? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Plohman, could I ask you to please reph rase the qu estion wit hou t provi ding information or leading the witness? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oleson. MRS. C. OLESON: Earlier in your remarks, Mr. Francis, you mentioned that you did not like the fact that there

Thu rsday, 22 September, 1983 were public hearings on this issue. Am I to understand you correctly? MR. P. FRANCIS: I questioned whether public hearings were necessary. MRS. C. OLESON: All right. Given that you questioned that they were necessary, is it your opinion then that, no matter what amendments to the Constitution, no matter what bill the government brings in or any government brings in, that there should be no public input on that subject at all? MR. P. FRANCIS: No, I wouldn't extend that comment to any situation.

I don't know what situations could possibly evolve, but I think each situation should be considered for its own merits and considered for the situation by which it is prompted. MRS. C. OLESON: Did you not feel that with a constitutional amendment of this magnitude, it would be absolutely necessary to find out what the people of Manitoba thought of it since it will affect everyone in some way, some time down the road? MR. P. FRANCIS: Again, I guess I see the position of government as being in a leadership role.

I'm not sure that it is always the wise thing to seek majority public opinion for a protection of a minority right. I think there are times when government has to take the lead in certain crucial issues, issues, as you speak, of utmost importance as the Constitution, but there are some issues that are wisely, I believe, left to the political leaders of the province that we have elected. MRS. C.

OLESON: In another vein then, in some part of your brief you mentioned, and I can't phrase it probably exactly because I haven't got it in front of me, but the impression I got was that you feel that this will put an end to all the lawsuits with regard to language in this province. Is that the way you view this? MR. P. FRANCIS: I view it that way. Perhaps I have the frame of reference to make that opinion when I consider the possibility resulting from the Supreme Court decision.

In comparison to the Su preme Court decision, I believe it will make a much more clean cut of the affair than will the Supreme Court judgment. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you. Since the resolution contai ns words li ke "sign if ic ant demand" and "reasonable" and words of that nature that some people find very difficult to define exactly, and since the courts will be the ones that interpret what is "significant demand" and what is "reasonable," do you not see that this will maybe lead to some court actions in the future? MR. P.

FRANCIS: That may well be the case, and I'm sorry I can't add any more to what the definition of "sign ificant demand" would be. Perhaps it may be in the best interests of the Leg isla tur e to have the committee further examine that particular wording, and restrict or define more exactly that particular phrase. I cannot contribute to that particular definition. 654 MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by members? Seeing none, Mr. Francis - oh, sorry. Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Francis. Mr.

Francis, I've been very interested in your presentation and your answering to some of the questions. Maybe it was inadvertent, or maybe I didn' t just follow you quite correctly, but you seem to have had some contradictions in what you had in your prepared brief and your answers to some of the questions. One of the things that intrigues me is the apparent concern that you have that you don't think that public hearings would be necessary in this thing, and yet you wanted to appear here to give the benefit of your wisdom to this committee, and I think it is very useful.

Could you tell me how the public would make their wishes known to the government and their concerns if we didn' t hold public hearings? MR. P. FRANCIS: To respond to your

preamble, it was my concern that I was unhappy that a public hearing had to be held on this particular issue. I did not object - and I hope I answered Mrs. Oleson - in principle, to public hearings, but I was sorry that in this particular situation that we had to go to public hearings. The specific question, could I ask you to repeat it please? MR. H. GRAHAM: The second part of the question was: could you tell me how the public should make their wishes known to government? Is there another means th at you would prefer, rather than public hearings? MR. P.

FRANCIS: Well, I think the government members are elected and placed in office. There is continual contact between members of the Legislature on a daily basis. Public people, like yourselves, are continually in the public eye in gatherings where opinions are presented to you. That has been a traditional way of meeting your go vernment and talkin g to your government; it's, for most of us, no farther away than a phone call. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Francis, for that answer.

Do you consider changes to a Constitution in the same light as, say, the passage of amendments to The Highw ay Traffic Act, or some other bill of the Legislature, or do you see a signif icant difference between this proposal here and other ordinary business of the House? MR. P. FRANCIS: I consider constitutional changes to be very very important, and when we look back at what has happened in Manitoba with a variety of changes in laws that have been enacted that have ignored the Constitution of 1870, I certainly do get upset.

I think it is a crucial area of im portance to est abl ish a Constitution that is workable and is fair. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Francis. I believe, Mr. Francis, in your brief • I

' I I Thursday, 22 Septem ber, 1983 you lamented the fact that this was taking so long, you felt that it should have moved a lot faster, was that correct? MR. P. FRANCIS: That what? MR. H. GRAHAM: This proposal that is before us that we're talking about here, this proposed resolution to amend the Constitution, The Manitoba Act. MR. P. FRANCIS: I was distressed, specifically, with the type of fili bustering that was taking place in the latter days of the Session this past summer and with the obvious filibus tering in the first few days of the public hearings in Winnipeg.

That tends to prolong, as we have even seen tonight on one or two cases, prolong the issue. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Francis, what do you consider to be filibustering? MR. P. FRANCIS: I suppose that needs a bit of an extended definition, doesn't it? I see filib ustering as a technique employed by a person, or a group of people, to prolong a debate on an issue where they do not particular want to resolve it. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I admire Mr. Francis's knowledge of the members and his ability to deduce their intention when they are asking questions.

I always felt that when a person asked questions they were seeking information, but maybe you have a different opinion of that. Could you tell me if it's a useful purpose to ask questions to illicit information before you proceed with things such as an amendment to a Constitution? MR. P. FRANCIS: Are you referring to rhetorical questions, or what kind of questions are you referring to? MR. H. GRAHAM: Que stions tha t would provide information as to the true nature of the feelings of the people of Manitoba on an issue so important as this one. MR. P.

FRANCIS: You're referring to a first time a question has been asked, or on numerous subsequent occasions that the same question has been asked? MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Francis hasn't really given me an answer yet. MR. P. FRANCIS: I don't know what type of question you're referring to, sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, perhaps you could pose your question again? MR. H. GRAHAM: If a person is asking for information and asking for advice, and this is what this committee is really doing , would you consider that to be a useful exercise or would you consider that to be a filibus ter? MR. P.

FRANCIS: I would consider that the sincerity behind the qu estion to seek advice which, and 655 information which has not previously been given in areas of direct concern, to be important. MR. H. GRAHAM: On that very issue, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Francis, when people change a constitution, do you see any difference between the purpose of a constitution as to spelling out principle, or the intent, or spelling out the rights of people, as cont rary to providing services? Does it cause you any concern to see the provision of services entrenched in a constitution? MR. P.

FRANCIS: Personally, it doesn't concern me to see the services entrenched. MR. H. GRAHAM: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Francis. If those services are very limited in scope, does it cause you any concern then? MR. P. FRANCIS: If you are speaking, I suspect, specifically again on constitutional changes, I suspect you are speaking about constitutional changes that will affect a particular segment of society, that being the case, and that may not be the case but that's my

interpretation of your comment, I presume that it would be satisfactory if the key groups that are involved in that particular amendment or change to the Constitution would have been involved in the discussion on the limits or the extents of those services. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Francis, earlier today we have heard people express their concern about the proposed amendments that put limits on the services that will be provided. Do you share that same concern that has been expressed by others in that respect? MR. P.

FRANCIS: I guess I come from a position of recognizing that whatever decision is eventually made, it is not going to satisfy everybody. To therefore be on side with all people who express concerns about the extent is an impossibility. So I could sugge st to you, and I'm sorry I can't do anything other than to suggest, that I would be satisfied with some of the extents that have been expressed and not with others. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr.

Francis, if only certain services are guaranteed by a constitution, would you consider that by omission of others that they were not very important and need not be provided by society? MR. P. FRANCIS: I don't think I am in a position to answer that, not knowing which services are referred to, but again I'm not convinced that necessarily has to be the case, that I would be perturbed. MR. H. GRAHAM: Those are most of the concerns that I had with the presentation of Mr. Francis, and I want to thank him for making his presentation tonight. I think he has provided us with some information that is useful. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Francis? Seeing none, Mr. Francis, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your presentation here this evening.

Thursday, 22 September, 1983 MR. P. FRANCIS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Jacqueline Fortier, please. MS. J. FORTIER: Je fais mon brei in franc;:ais et suite a mon brei, je ne repondrer pas aux questions du comite. Monsieur le President, membres du comite, Un couplet d'un e vieille chanson canadienne se lit comme suit et je cite . . un Canadien errant, banni de ses foyers, parcourait en pleurant, des pays etranges. Fin de la citation.

Je crois que ces mots sont tres appropries en ce temps-ci, car les avenement des derniers mois m'ont fait ressentir, comme pour plusieurs Franco-Manitobains d'ailleurs, que nous etions a pays etrange . . . dans un pays ou une haine acharnee se deversait sur no us. Nous pleurons, Mo nsieur les membres du comite, pas parce que nous sommes details, non plus parce que nous sommes decourages, mais plutot parce que des personnes mal informees veulent nous empecher d'atteindre ce qui le n6tre par droit, tant moral que legal. Nous avions un statui d'egalite en 1870, mais de ce statut d'egalite, quand est-il devenu?

Manigance politique, majority rule, oui, tous ces ... ont reussit a nous l'e nlever pour qu'aujour d'hui, on puisse venir nous dire only three percent speak french. Quel risee. Et dire que ceux et celles qui s'expriment ainsi se prennent au serieux. Ce que nous demandons, ce n'est pas quelque chose a quoi nous n'avons pas droit. Mais bel et bien simple, des citoyens a part egal. Des citoyens francophones egaux en tous respects a leur s homo logues anglop hon es. La chanson que je citais plus haul mentionnait le terme Canadien. Oui, je suis fiere d'etre Canadienne, fiere de ma race et de mes ancetres.

Ce furent les francophones de ce pays qui util iserent le terme Canadien bien avant les autres qui se consideraient sujets britanniq ues ou tout simplement anglais. Qu'on ne vienne done pas aujourd 'hui insinuer que le franc;:ais n'a part egale dans le Canada et le Manitoba de 19 83 et des annees a venir. Parler en ces termes demontre une ignorance profonde de l'histoire de notre pays et de notre province. Toute l'histoire du Canada d'un ocean a !'autre, demontre !'impact enorme qu'ont eu les francophones, les Canadiens. Lisez un peu l'histoire du Canada.

Regardez les exploits, le travail des explorateurs, des voyageurs, des pretres, religieux et relig ieuses, des colons. Oui, tant au Ma nitoba qu'ail leurs. le fait franc;:ais a existe depuis des centaines annees. Ces pionniers et pionnieres ont ete tenances et c'est grace a leurs efforts que notre pays a ete bati. La chanson que je citais date de l'epoque des troupes de 1837, 1838 dans le bas et le haut Canada. Les gens de ce temps-la avaient ete defaits, mais tout de meme des retombees positives decoulerent de leurs sacrifices, de leurs defaites.

Seulement !rente annees apres, deux grands hommes de notre histoire, McDonald et Cartier, anglophone et francophone, devenaient les fondateurs d'un pays qui allait s'etendre d'un ocean a I' autre. Des personnes venant de dif ferents milieux, de differentes religions, de differentes langues, pouvaient s'unir pour batir un pays. Ne pouvons nous pas en faire de meme ici au Manitoba en 19 83. Avons-nous perdu le sens de !'initiative, de la justice, du fair play. De grace, ne repetez pas les erreurs de 1890, de 1916 en 19 83.

Servez-vous 656 plut6t de cette occasion inouie, pour demontrer que vous etes capables de rectifier les torts infliges a toute une population. Vous avez le devoir de le faire. Je ne veux pas etre une Canadienne errante dans un pays etrange. Je ne veux pas etre heritiere d'un e langue folklo risee qu'o n peut se servir que dans certaines occasions. Je ne veux pas du token french et me faire dire de speak white. Dans le pays de mes ancetre, dans mon pays, je veux etre citoyenne a part egale.

Je suis entierement d'accord avec, et j'appuie sans hesitation, !'accord negocie entre la Societe franco-manitobaine, le gouvernement du Manitoba et le gouvernement federal en mai dernier. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for yo ur presentation. Next on our list is Yvonne Pantel. Yvonne Pantel, please. MS. V. PANTEL: Puisque je lis ce brei au nom du comite de parents de Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, je preferais ne pas pas repondre a les questions a la suite. M. le president, membres du comite.

La loi 11 3 adoptee a l'unanimite par I' Assemblee legislative du Manitoba le 16 jui llet 19 70 a reconnu legalement ce qui etait considere comme acquis depuis !'entree du Manitoba dans la confederation: le droit, pour ceux qui le desirent, d'i nscrire leurs enfants dans une ecole publique ou l'enseignement serail di spense en franc;:ais de la maternelle a la douzieme annee.

La simple existence du droit de perpetuer sa culture ne consiste pas la garantie de sa survie. 11 taut faire !'effort de perception et d'i magination qui permette d'entrevoir aussi clairement que possible, le chemin qui conduit des droits aux realisations des intentions aux realites.

L'ecole franc;:aise ne se realisera que si elle peut compter sur tous ces agents: premierement, des individus conscients de leur identite; deuxieme, un foyer familial eveille a la culture canadien ne-franc;:aise; troisiemement, des institutions sociales et economiques favorables a l'epanouissement de cette culture et de cette identite; qu atriem ement, une communa ute dynam iqu e dont les structu res permettent une integration aisee et le developpement d'un sentiment d'appartenance. La langue constitue une des manifestations la plus concrete de l'originalite d'un groupe culture! particulier.

Les Franco-Manitobains temoignent toujours de cette identite culturelle particuliere au sein d'une communaute composee de plusieurs groupes ethniques, mais qui est foncierement anglophone. Chez nous, dans notre communa ute, nous avons une population 95 pour cent franc;:aise qui nous donne le privilege d'avoir une ecole franc;:aise de la maternelle a la douzieme annee. Ainsi, dans le maintien et !'affirmation de cette identite, l'ecole a plus que jamais, un role particulier a jouer et elle ne peut le faire que si elle tient compte du monde ou l'eleve evolue.

Ces audienc es publiques, bien qu'e lles ne veulent que don ner !'occasion a chacun de s'exprimer, n'atteignent pas toujours leur noble but. Au contraire, elles propagent l'hostilite et accentuent de plus en plus les div isions qui marquent no tre commu naut e manitobaine. Le gouvernement a distribue cet ete un depliant avec lequel il esperait apaiser les craintes des opposants •

Thursday, 22 Septemb er, 1983 aux amendements. Ce depliant n'a pas suffi, puisque les opposants vociferent toujours de plus en plus et ils ont meme reussi a obtenir la tenue de ces audienc es publiques. 11 semblerait que le gouvernement soit en train de se rebrousser chemin, sinon de sacrifier completement les principes selon lesquels !'entente a ete negociee. Cessons de donner libre cours a la vehemence. Faisons un effort pour mettre fin a la discorde entre Manitobains d'expression anglaise et ceux d'expression franc;:aise. 11 suffit d'amender !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba.

Les opposants cesserons d'etre belliqueux lorsqu'ils constateront que les amendements ne les affectent aucunement. Le retablissement de la justice doit etre notre priorite. M. le president, membres du comite, nous, le Comite de parents de Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, accordons notre appui a la resolution negociee au mois de mai pour amender !'article 23 de I'Acte du Manitoba. Merci. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Pantel. Next on our list, Paul Cenerini. Mr. Cenerini, please. Procedez. MR. P. CENERINI: Merci. M. le president, distingues membres du comite, chers membres de l'auditoire.

Ce n'est pas pour vous faire des reprimandes que je me presente devant vous ce soir . Ce n'est pas pour vous donner des cours d'histoire ni pour me lancer dans des tirades. Dieu sait que vous en avez deja assez entendu. Non ... c'est plut6t pour essayer de vous presenter un point de vu nouveau en ce qui concerne la question qui est actuellement sur le tapis. Nous sommes les membres du personnel de la seule ecole secondaire franc;:aise du sud-o uest de la province du Manitoba. Nous avons de solides convictions en ce qui concerne le franc;:ais.

Nous oeuvrons presque entierement en franc;:ais depuis environ deux ans. Nous avons une solide ex perience avec nos el eves francophones ainsi qu'a vec leurs parents, autant dire qu'a vec l'entiere communa ute francophone de Notre­ Dame-de-Lourdes et de Saint-Leon. Nous sommes en mesure d'eclairer un peu plus cette matiere d'un e lumiere surtout pedagogique. Comme professeurs, nous nous voyons confier de plus en plus de taches par une societe de parents tres occupes. Autrefois, a la maison, le parent enseignait la foi, la morale, la langue, la discipline a son enfant.

Aujourd'hui, vous savez que c'est di fferent: la maman travai lle au bur eau, la grand-maman demeur e au manoir, la gardienne ne parle pas la langue maternelle de !'enfant Le parent veut ce qu'il y a de mieux pour !'enfant, cependant. Aujour d' hui, cela veut dir e la competence "biling uistique"; apres tout, la plupart des emplois maintenant se trouvent dans le secteur des services ou on a besoin des deux langues officielles du pays. Alors, nous voila, nous, professeurs mandates d'enseigner le franc;:ais a un eleve qui n'est souvent pas pret et qui est meme quelque fois re