LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Warren Steen (Crescentwood). CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee come to order.

As I mentioned to some of the members of committee both yesterday and this morning, is that the Winn ipeg Chamber of Com merce had written me some time ago asking if they could be heard this afternoon because their two persons involved with them have business commitments, and they wrote in some time ago asking if on the 9th in the afternoon they could be heard, so it would be my suggestion that we hear them first thing this afternoon. I trust, to members of the committee, that you concluded this morning with the Association of Rights and Liberties. Is that right Mr. Kovnats? MR. ABE KOVNATS (Radisson): Mr.

Chairman, we had concluded with that group. We allowed them past the appointed hour to continue and comp lete their address and I had announced that the Winnipeg Chamb er of Com merce wou ld be the first presentation this afternoon. MR. CHAIRMAN: Representing the Winn ipeg Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Kristjansson and Mr. Reimer. Would you come forward please. Mr . Reimer, are both of you involved in the presentation? MR. REIMER: Yes we are, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: When one or the other speaks, just identify yourselves because the meeting is being taped for Hansard purposes. MR. REIMER: Fine.

I'm going to, if it's in order, Mr. Chairman, read our submission into the record and then Mr. Kristjansson who is a lawyer and of course was involved in the drafting of the submission will be here to answer questions in respect to it, if that's in order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, do you have copies of your presentation? MR. REIMER: Yes we do. If I may, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, just before I begin reading our submission, perhaps some of you or all of you may have read an

article in the Winnipeg Free Press, Page 3 of, I believe, it was the November 27 edition, which purported to indicate the Chamber's position on some of the items that we're discussing today, and the headline in fact of that

article indicated that the Chamb er would be in favour of supporting the entrenchment of human rights in the constitution, and as a matter of fact as you will notice, as we present our subm ission, that is not the position which the Chamb er Council as taken. So in case there's been some misunderstanding on the part of the committee, perhaps I should say that at the outset. The Free Press

article was based on an internal document and at that time the Chamber Council had not yet discussed our position on the Constitution or taken a position, and the

article indicated that we had taken a position, and that should be corrected I believe at the outset. I'd now like to read our submission to you. The Winnip eg Cha mber of Com merce has prepared a brief outlining its recommendations of its Council respect ing the Federal Gove rnment's resolution "to bring about the amend ment and repatriation of the Constitution of Canada." In preparing its recommendations, the Chamber utilized the report of a Constitutional Task Force which it established to consider the matter, as well as a survey of the Chamber's membership on attitudes to constitutional ref orm.

These are our recommendations: 1. Canada does need a new constitution. The federal and provincial governments have sought many changes to the existing constitution. Topics dealing with the distribution of power between the federal and provincial ju risdictions, Sena te refo rm, appointment of Supreme Court judges, and language rights, to name a few, have for many years been the subject of discussions in Canada. There appears to be no doubt but that certain changes to the existing Constitution are needed.

The Chamb er believes that the most important change to the existing Constitution is that which will permit change without requ iring the un animous approval of the federal and provincial governments. An amending formula is needed and needed now, as Canada prepares for the future. 2.

"Repatriation" of the Constitution of Canada is highly desirable. 1t seems to have become a matter of some concern to Canadians that the present Constitution of Canada is in the form of legislation, (British North America Act) enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom and that the amendments to the Canadian Constitution are made by the British Parliament in the form of legislation amending or adding to The British North America Act.

However, it should be noted that all amending or additional legislation has only been made by the British Parliament when requested by Canada and then only with the consent of all Canadian provinces.

The Parliament of the United Kingdom does not therefore purport to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over Canadians, as a matter of right, but only because federal and- provincial authorities in Canada have failed to reach agreement on an amending formula, which seems to have been the stumbling block to bringing home Canada's Constitution. lt should also be noted that The British North America Act of 18 67, did not itself contain an amending formula.

The wording of the statute was drafted by Canadians of the day who did not include an amending formula, because they could not reach agreement on how to amend the statute. This pattern has continued as the Honourable Jean Chretien, Min ister of Justice, pointed out in a speech to the House of Commons on October 6, 19 80: 317

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 "F or one reason or another, the Federal Provincial attempts of 1927, 19 31, 19 35-36, 1950, 19 61, 19 64, 19 71, 19 75-76, 19 78-79 to find such an amending formula all failed". The Constitution of Canada should be repatriated. Canadian conscience, pride and emotional appeal associated with Repatriation of the Constitution of Canada are urgent enough reasons that repatriation be done.

However, Repatriation of the Constitution of Canada without the provision of an amending formula might satisfy for a short time, the emotional appeal associated with the Act, but the problem of how to change the constitution except by unanimous agreement and consent of all provinces, would still remain and possibly be compounded. 3. The "Repatriation" of the Constitution of Canada must include a Provision for Future Amendments to the Constitution to be made in Canada. The federal resolution now proposed calls for the British Parliament to enact The Canada Act and as a

schedule to that Act, The Constitution Act, 1980. The Constitution Act does contain provisions for future amendments to Canada's Constitution to be made in Canada . These provisions for future amendments are to be found in Parts 11, Ill, IV and V and do provide a means for determination of an amending formula.

This determination is obviously needed although the amending formula stated in the federal resolution is unacceptable to the Chamber, however we wish to stress that even though the Chamb er has not come up with an amending formula, we view amending provisions as an important and necessary ingr edient of the repatriation procedure 4. Repatriation of the Constitution of Canada, includin g satisfactory provisions for futur e amendments to be made in Canada should not be done by the federal government, except with the consent of the provinces.

The current attempt by the federal government to unilaterally repatriate Canada's Constitution certainly does not aid the case for national unity. The two questions involving legality of unilateral Constitutional Reform, and the qu estion of encroa chment on provincial authority, is now being contested in the courts by many provinces. If the provinces consent to repatriation is not obtained, then regions with similar interests are forced to un ite not only in opposition to the federal gov ernment but in opposition to other regions whose views may differ.

Canadian unity cannot be achieved through this kind of process which simply introduces new problems and compounds existing problems. 5. If Repatriation of the Constitution of Canada is done without the consent of the Provinces, then the only provision for the amendment of the Constitution of Canada, to be includ ed wit h the repatriation proceedings, should be limited to the provisions for its future amendment in Canada.

In view of the application made by the Province to the Ma nitoba Court of Appeal, which in effect questions the right of the Federal Parliament to repatriate the Constitution with the amend ments being sought to the Constitution of Canada, it would seem more advisable for the adoption of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be deferred until questions of legality have been settled. Many of the provinces have taken the position that the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or some of its provisions, infringe on the exclusive rights (or some of them) granted to the Provinces under

Section 92 of The British North America Act.

This may well be the situation but notwithstanding, the Courts may decide that the British Parliament at Westminster has the right, particularly if requested by the Parliament of Canada without the consent of the Senate, to give effect to the proposed resolution and enact the legislation requested. lt would seem, under these circu mstances, that if the Federal Government is successful in repat riating the Constitution in the form proposed, then regardless of the outcome of pending litiga tion, a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms could and would probably become the subject of attack and criticism for reasons, which may prove to be valid legal reasons, but which do not, except perhaps indirectly, deal with the real question of whether there should be a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, if entrenched, will indeed limit the existing powers and privileges of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislatures of the Provinces. 6.

That a Cha rter of Individual Rights and Freedoms should not be "entrenched" in the Constitution of Canada. Much has been said on this question. Premier Sterling Lyon, in his statement on this question to the First Min isters' Conference on the Constitution held in February, 1979, said in part: (Page 2) "Well sir, I want to tell you that Manitoba is going to be consistent in its position. We think a Bill of Rights is not good for the Constitution of Canada - not because we are opposed in any way, shape or form to a Bill of Rights.

Heavens, we are as concerned as any other province around this table about enforcing individual and democratic and other rights for the people of Manitoba - but the method of enforcement, we think, has been proved beyond que stion to be better do ne by Parliament, by the Legislature, as we have done in this country for the past 11 2 years." and later: (Page 4) Premier Lyon is reported to have said: ". . . we say that we do not support entrenchment, even of the first group of three rights in the Constitution, not because we do not favour them, not because we do not feel that that kind of protection should not be given to the people of Canada or to the people of Manitoba, but because we know that under the present system that protection is being given, and we rather doubt that the new system that is being grafted unto our Constitution is going to improve that in any way at all.

In fact, I think it is going to prejudice the application of the protection of rights to our citizens." and later, (Page 5) Premier Lyon is reported to have said: 318 "W hat we are doing if we agree to an entrenched Bill of Rights is to say to the elected representatives of the people "you have less jur isdiction today than you had yesterday" and to the Courts "you have more - - -

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 jurisdiction today than you had yesterday" and the Courts are of course appointed and the representatives and MP 's and members of the Legislative Assemblies are elected." The position of the Province of Manitoba is or should be well known. The position of the Federal Gove rnment is set out in its recent Resolutio n concerning the Constitution. The Winnipeg Chamber of Com merce endor ses Premier Sterl ing Lyon 's position on the issue of rights and freedoms. 7.

Although we do not agree with the entrenchment of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Winn ip eg Cham ber of Com merce records its appr oval of the in tent of the contents of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, except for the change noted herein. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce adopts the in tent of the Canadian Ch arter of Rights and Freedoms proposed by the Federal Government in their Constitution Resolution, except for Subsection (1) of

Section 23 - of

Schedule B, being the Constitution Act,

Section 23( 1) reads in part: "C itizens of Canada whose first langua ge learned and still unde rstood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the Province in which they reside have the right ... " The Cham ber bel ieves that the Langua ge Educational Rights of the minority should not be dependent on whether or not the "first language learned and still understood" must be the language of in struction for which minor ity langua ge educational facilities in an area are being sought. The recommended rewording of the

section is as follows: "23( 1) Citizens of Canada will have the right to have their children educated in either the French or English language at the primary and secondary school levels if they reside in an area of the province in which the number of children of such citizen or citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision out of public funds of minority language educational facilities in that area." The Chamb er also agrees in principle with the provision contained in

Section 1 of the Canadian Ch arter of Rights and Freed oms - that the "guarantees" of the Rights and Freedoms set out in the Ch arter are "subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government." Dealing with this latter statement it should be said, perhaps needlessly, that every freedom carries with it a responsibility, which tends to restrict the exercise of the freedom.

However, if the Cha rter is entrenched the provision in question is a necessary and vital ingredient of the proposal since there will be restrictions, many of which at this stage of our development, will not even be contemplated. lt is obvious that a list of restrictions will not satisfy what is needed and for that reason, the restrictive provision suggested seems a reasonable solution if the Charter is entrenched. In Conclusion, The Winn ipeg Cha mber of Commerce favors repatriation of the Constitution of Canada but only with the consent of the provinces.

If the Constitution is uni laterally repatriated by the Federal Government then only the provisions or something similar respecting the amendments to the Constitution should be included in the repatriated Const itution. The inclusion in a uni laterally repatriated Constitution of a Ch arter of Human Rights must be deferred until a large majority of Canadians are resolved that such a Cha rter entrenched in our Conztitution is not only necessary, but highly desi rable despite whatever the weaknesses or limitations of such entrenchment may be.

The Ch amber believes, and believes sincerely, that those qu estions of the Constitution in volving fundamental changes in the relationship between the Federal and Provincial authorities should of course be given due consideration, but these questions will not have the same im po rtance, inde ed if any importance, if our parliamentarians and legislators fail now to provide Canad ians with a kind of Constitution that is so obviously wanted and needed now, to unite us as Canadians.

So we say to you Gentlemen, we have made our comments with the hope that we have helped, not hindered the cause and with the prayer that we all get on with the job and get it finished with a showing of unani mity. The outcome of the cause is so important and its success, so dependent on its acceptance by a majority of Canadians, that the resolution of the qu estion is unthi nkable without more unanimity than is now shown. This is approved by the Council of The Winnip eg Cha mber Com merce, December 2, 19 80 and is respectfully submitted. Thank you very much, and as I said earlier, Mr.

Kris tjansson who is the Chairman of our Constitutional Subcommittee and who is the Legal Counsel is here to answer questions if there are any. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Reimer, for your presentation on behalf of the Winnipeg Cha mber. And as Mr. Reimer has stated, Mr. Kristjansson, the Chairman of their Constitutional Task Force is accompanying him here this afternoon and is prepared to answer questions from members of the committee. Are there any members of the committee that wish to ask questions at this time? I know Mr.

Reimer you read very quickly and you had a fair amount of material for us to digest, so it may take a moment or two before questions are . . . Mr. Schroeder, you have a question? MR. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): Yes, I do Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would Mr. Kristjansson like to join you at the microphone. Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On Point No. 7 on Page 5, I'm just wondering is it the position of the Chamber that the current minority language rights as they are today, would continue in Manitoba and Quebec. MR. KRISTJANSSON: Yes. MR.

CHAIRMAN: They would be entrenched rights to a language in Manitoba and Quebec, and what 319

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 you're referring to in

Section 7 is that those additional rights would be given to people in the eight other provinces. Is that the position you take? MR. KRIST JANSSON: I think the position taken by the Chamber is in reference to the resolution itself and we're merely saying to the committee that if it's necessary to entrench what has been suggested in the charter, that we would go along with this entrenchment of what's been suggested, with the one revision dealing with the question of language rights.

We don't think the fact that one must speak the language of birth to be a condition to the right to be educated in his or her minority language. That's really what we're saying, and all we're saying. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, probably I'm still a little bit confused. Your first position is that you don't want a Cha rter of Rights. I understand that. But . . . MR. KRIST JANSSON: Our first position is we don't go for an entrenchment of a Charter of Rights. We go with the intent of a Cha rter of Rights.

But we agree with Premier Lyon's statement that it would probably be better to have those rights subject to change by the majority wish of the Legislature. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. Your first desire is not to have an entrenched Bill of Rights. Is it also your first desire to have language rights entrenched? MR. KRIST JANSSON: The proposal put forth by the Government of Canada is to entrench language rights. MR. SCHROEDER: But that's not my question. My question to you is whether your Chamber supports entrenchment of language rights as they now exist? MR.

KRIST JANSSON: it's difficult for me to answer that with a simple yes or no because I don't know that the Chamber has really considered the question of entrenchment of language rights as they now exist. What the Chamber did was take the proposal which has been advanced by the federal government and approve what has been proposed. The intent of it has been satisfactory to the Chamber, and what they're saying in effect is that we don't want to entrench those rights in a constitution. We believe that it would be better to leave it as it is, to leave it to the Legislature to ensure that basic rights are protected.

But, we agree with the intent of the resolution. We accept what the Government of Canada has proposed as being basic rights which should be protected for all individuals, including the language rights which are set out in the resolution and those language rights I think go beyond the right to educate one's children, they also deal with the question of the use of two langu ages in the Legislature, in the reports and so on. So indirectly I would say, yes, the Cha mber endorses those rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Just to clarify that.

On language rights specifically, is it then your position that the Cha mber supports� entrenched language rights for the minority in the<.Province of Manitoba? What you have been saying up until now is - it seems to me that you have been on both sides of the fence - what you are saying is that you would prefer a Bill of Rights which is not entrenched, which would include language rights. That would be your first preference. If that's not what you 're sayi ng, then I would appreciate your explaining that to me again so that I can understand what your first preference is.

Is it that those language rights will be entrenched in such a way that parliament cannot or any one Legislature cannot change them, or is it your proposal that language rights although they should be put in a Bill of Rights could be changed by one Legislature later on? Mr. Kristjansson, as a lawyer, I am sure you are aware of the significance of the difference. And the dif ference is that if we hadn't had entrenched language rights in Ma nitoba in 18 70 under The Manitoba Act then, of course, the 18 90 Act would not have been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada several years ago. MR.

KRISTJANSSON: Mr. Schroeder, I can only tell you what I understand the position of the Ch amber to be and I think that position is set out in the Constitution. I have a different position personally than the position adopted by the Chamber; but it's my understanding that the Chamber endorses the proposals which have been put forth regarding language rights and that this would includ e the existing language rights as now set out in The BNA Act. That's my understanding of the Chamber's position.

But what the Chamber is also saying is that while we endorse the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms set out in the resolution, that is the intent of it, we think that the citizens of Canada would be better protected, the citizens of Manitoba would be better protected , if the enforcement of those rights was left to the Legislature. That's the position taken by the Chamber. They say, okay, let's leave it to the Legislature to, in effect, maintain and protect what we consider to be basic human rights.

Yes, I think the Cha mber has also said that all of those rights listed in the Canadian Cha rter of Rights and Fre edoms are rights which we endor se in principle as being rights which should be available to the individual. MR. SCHROEDER: You are making a distinction between the right to speak, for instance, English or French in the courts or in the Legislature and some of the other fundamental . . . MR. KRISTJANSSON: Yes, but that's also a right that's being proposed by the resolution and the Chamber endorses that. They say, yes, that's a right that should be protected in the Constitution.

Now it may not be protected as a basic human right of an individual, but it may be a right which is there for the benefit of anyone that wants to enforce it, just as it is now. MR. SCHROEDER: But Mr.

Kristjansson, we've seen what's happened the last time the Legislature in Man itoba assumed that there weren't entrenched language rights and they simply passed legislation eliminating the rights which in fact were entrenched; and no Legislature for 90 years decided to change that until the courts brought back the protection which had been eliminated by the Legislature in the first place earlier this year. (Interje ction)- Excuse me, if you don't mind, I would like to finish. At that 320 - - -

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 time it was only brought back because of the fact that the courts intervened, and although you can have language in a federal constitution unentrenched stating that these are language rights, I'm sure you would agree with me, that 10 years from now the Legislature of Manitoba with another group similar in nature to those of 18 90 could very well pass a similar resolution eliminating the right to French language. Regardless of what the position of the Cha mber would be, that type of legislation could be passed if your position was adopted by the federal parliament. MR.

KRIST JANSSON: Conceded. But that's the position taken by the Chamber. They're saying, we would prefer to leave the question of those rights and their future protection and maintenance to the Legislature rather than to an

interpretation put on by the courts. In other words, if it was entrenched. And I agree the Legislature might be limited, certainly one Legislature would be limited, they'd have to get the approval of several Legislatures perhaps to change an

interpretation which the court might put on it, which might not meet with the wishe s of the lawmakers MR. SCHROEDER: I take it then that it is the position of the Chamber that it is the Legislatures which can best protect the minorities as opposed to the courts, because I'm sure we're all in favour ... MR. KRIST JANSSON: I qu oted three extracts from a talk given by Premier Lyon and said we endorse that, we accept that. MR. SCHROEDER: But I'm asking a specific question, Mr. Kristjansson. Is it the position of the Chamber that the Legislature can better protect minorities in Manitoba than can the courts? MR.

KRIST JANSSON: I think in view of the position they've taken, I think the only answer I can give you is the one I've just given you - that they feel the Legislature can do a better job than the courts. Now, wait a minute, I should qualify that to a little extent when I say a better job; perhaps they say that the Legislature can do a job that is more in keeping with the wishes of the majority of the people of the province at any time than can the courts. Perhaps that's what they've said by endorsing the principle that we don't thin k the Ch arter should be entrenched.

I think I'd rather adopt that statement on behalf of the Chamber than the one I put out to you initially. MR. SCHROEDER: That is qu ite a change Mr. Kristjansson. The difference between supporting the position that the majority should be able to ride roughshod over the minority as opposed to better protection of rights and freedoms. And I say that because of certain in stances that we have had occurring in Manitoba's history, and not necessarily that far back. We can refer to labour legislation which doesn't give the right to organize to farm labourers for in stance.

We can refer to federal legislation - The War Measures Act in 19 70. We can refer to the deportation of people who were born in Canada to Japan after the Second World War. We can refer to the Indian women cases we've been hearing about in the last few weeks and months and years. In none of those cases I suggest to you, did that type of mistreatment of a minority by a parliament or a legislature ever result in that matter becoming an issue in an election campaign, nor did it ever result in a government being defeated.

I could refer you as well to the padlock laws in Quebec which we've heard about during these hearings. And similarly, the same negative result occurred. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder, are you trying to argue with Mr. Kristjansson or are you trying to ask a question? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would never want to argue with anybody . . . MR. KRISTJANSSON: I agree with him that that's the whole idea of our parliamentary system.

The majority have the right to ride roughshod over the wishes of the minority, which is of course the reason why they're so many advocates of entrenching what they call basic human rights in a charter, so that the wishes of the majority cannot override the views of the minority. But that's not what the Chamber has said to Mr. Schroeder in its brief. MR. SCHROEDER: I su ppose that is why the Chamber would take that position. They're generally white, midd le-class, midd le-aged males, fairly successful - part of the majority who are not going to be ridden roughshod over. MR.

KRIST JANSSON: lt doesn't necessarily mean that the minority are being ridden roughshod by the majority simply because the views of the minority don't coincide with the views of the majority. You've used the word, "ridden roughshod over", what does that mean? That they ride horses over them or they tramp on them, or they merely say to them, "L ook minority, you've got to go along with the views of the majority because that's our way of life." Is that what you mean by roughshod? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr.

Kristjansson, possibly the best way of just ind icating to you what that means is to refer to the submission of the Japanese Canadian Association to the Join t Comm ittee in Parliament on Page 10. Their submis sion is as follows: "E ven the architects of organ ized dis crim in ation recogn ize the di ffic ulties of a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights in the Un ited States.

When the American and Canadian governments were conspiring to deport, more correctly to send to Japan because two-thirds were born here, and disperse Americans and Canadians of Japanese extraction, the then United States Under Secretary of State Edward Stetanus expressed his concern over some imped iment in their grand design." I'm quoting from that particular American Under Secretary of State.

He went on to state the citizenship differences, he went on to state, and I quote again, "The Canadians will probably realize that our situation is complicated by our laws relating to citiz enship and the constitutional provisions regarding the native born." He's dealing with the constitution of the United States. And the submission goes on, "Thus, because of the constit utionally enshrined Bill of Rights the Japanese Americans were able to return to their homes a full nine months 321

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 prior to the termination of the Pacific War while the Canadian Japanese languished in the internment camps and were being deported, sent back to Japan and dispersed for almost four full years after the unconditional surrender of Japan when the presumed reason for their confinement had vanished." Now that is what I would sugg est to you "r iding roughshod." MR. KRIST JANNSON: Well consider what happened to the Japanese during the war to be shocking. it's understandable that people were acting on the threat of danger from invasion.

Although I don't understand why there hasn't been some kind of gratituitous settlement . . . (un intelligible) ... Speaking not as a member of the Chamb er but personally, I think that there probably are certain rights, you might call them human rights which are so basic that they probably should be enshrined in some kind of a charter so that if there is to be a change it's to be a change which must be right across the country.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether all of the, that is personally, whether all of the rights which the federal government is now suggesting be entrenched, whether all of those rights are so basic that they should be entrenched as a basic right. But my un ders tanding is that the Chamb er says no, they should be maintained and protected by the Legislature. But they agree with the intent of it, the intent being that those are rights which should be maintained and protected by the Legislature, according to the will of the Legislature from time to time. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. MR.

WALDING: I have a few questions to put to the Chamb er. The first one had to do with the very first point that you make on Page 2, I presume it is, that Canada does need a new constitution. Can you give me some instances of what could be done with a new constitution that cannot be done with the present one? MR. KRIST JANNSON: Apparently it can't be amended because we can never get unanimity on amendment except in some rare isolated cases. MR. WALDING: Is it not true that the Constitution has been amended many times since 1967? MR.

KRIST JANNSON: There have been many amendments to the Constitution but they've been things that are sort of additional, they haven't changed any of the existing di vision of powers between - well, they have, yes, to some extent I think the Constitution should be changed to permit more flexible changes. Make it easier for changes to be made. lt's di fficult when you have to get unanimity of all provinces to bring about a change. MR. WALDING: Does the Chamber have an opinion as to in what way the division of power should be changed?

Does it see more powers going to the provinces or more powers going to the Federal Government? MR. KRISTJANNSON: I don't think the Chamber has considered that question as to how the division, if there is to be any greater division take place, no. Is that right, Mr. Reimer? I don't think the Chamber has considered that question. MR. WALDING: So you're suggesting the matter of amendment and changes to division of powers are thi ngs that cannot be do ne under the present constitution. Are there any other things ... MR.

KRIST JANNSON: I think what the Chamb er is saying is that there is so much discussion between the provinces and the federal government over change and over the need for change; they talk about the division of powers, that the provinces want perhaps some greater power within

Section 92, the federal government may or may not be prepared to sort of give up some of their power in order that the provinces have greater power, questions involving the Senate, the appointment of jud ges, all the Chamb er is in effect saying is that because of all these things, because that's all you read about in the paper all the time is change and the fact that they cannot seem to agree on change, it's obvious that we need some kind of a new constitution.

And all the Cha mber is sayi ng, that obviously the greatest change is one which will permit change without having to get unanimity between the provinces on each occasion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before you carry on, Mr. Walding, may I ask you, Mr. Kristjannson if you could jus t keep your voice up a touch because the gentleman doing the record ing is having a little difficulty hearing you. MR. KRIST JANNSON: I 'm sorry. Is that a little better? MR. WALDING: Mr. Kristjannson, you'v e pointed out a problem that is I think obvious to everybody that there is not agreement on what changes should be made.

Why are you suggesting to us that those changes would be agreed upon more easily or more beneficially under a new constitution than under the present one? What will change people's minds or attitudes? MR. KRIST JANNSON: No, I'm not suggesting that. I am merely saying that the Chamb er, what they are suggesting is the greatest change, the greatest need in the new constitution is a provision which would permit change more easily. In other words, the idea of getting unanimity between the provinces on the occasion of each change is something that is so great that it's unlikely there will ever be any change.

So all we're suggesting to you is that yes, we need a new constitution because we need provision for easier method of changing. You'll never get unanimity. MR. WALDING: So it's not the constitution itself that we need renewed, it's the method of changing it. Is that the ... MR. KRIST JANNSON: That is our first point. But if you ever did obtain a method of changing it you'd probably bring about the changes that might be needed in the constitution through that method and I think at this stage we should be talking about a 322 - -

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 method of change rather than what we're going to do. Because until we get around this question of, no change unless unanimous, I don't think we're going to get any change at all. That's really all the Chamber's brief says, is that yes, we need a new constitution, let's get one that incorporates provision for change. MR. WALDING: Thank you. I'd like to move to a new question if I may, and that is the bottom of Page 5 where you suggest a change in the wording for educational rights. The Cha mber is saying to us there that the children of citizens of Canada will have certain rights.

Now there is no mention of the children of residents who might not yet be citizens. Are you not suggesting there that immediately you are producing two types of rights for children? May I just tell you one further thing; that there is presently no division in Manitoba, every child resident here has the same rights to go to an English speaking, French speak ing school. There is no di stinction as to nationality. MR. KRIST JANNSON: Regardless of citizenship. MR. WALDING: So the Chamber is not suggesting that there should be a differentiation between the children of citizens and the childr en of landed immigrants.

Is that correct? MR. KRIST JANNSON: Well, I don't think the Chamber has really looked at it from that point of view. All they've done really is take the proposal and the proposal deals only with the rights of Canadian citizens. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, without wishing to get into an argument with Mr. Kristjannson, I would remind him that the resolution itself does speak of citizens in one part and it speaks of all people or all residents in another part. MR.

KRIST JANNSON: Well I don't think the mind of the Chamber was directed to the question of whether the rights should be equally applicable to say, a landed immigrant as well as to a Canadian citizen, so I am unable to give you the position of the Chamber on the question which you have asked. MR. WALDING: I see. Thank you. MR. KRIST JANNSON: For myself, I could say I don't think there should be many differences. MR. WALDING: There is not at the moment, at least in Manitoba. I'm wondering if the Chamber is suggesting that there should be two classes of children as far as education rights are considered. MR.

KRIST JANNSON: I don't think that would be their position at all. I think if anything their position would be there should not be any difference. MR. WALDING: Okay. Can I then move on to one further question. There is an investigation going on in this city, I believe today, it was certainly yesterday, having to do with the closing down of two newspapers in this country, possible collusion and some people have said breach of the Anti-Combines Act, you know of what I am speaking, the Southam Group and the Thomson group closed down two papers recently.

I wonder if the Ch amber would view that as being freedom of the press, that if a person has a right to open a newspaper, he has the right to close it, and two persons have the right to come together to close a paper that they each own. MR. KRIST JANNSON: I thin k that's an un fair question to put to us on this submission. I don't know what the position of the Chamber . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kristjannson, you don't have to answer any question other than questions that pertain to your exact brief and then a delegate or a representative doesn't have to answer questions.

That's why I always ask every delegation whether they would submit to questions, unless they therefore direct us. So if the question from Mr. Walding in your opinion is an unfair one to you as a representative of the Chamber you do not have to answer it. MR. KRIST JANNSON: I think it's unfair in the sense that I'm not in a position to answer it, but I'm informed by the President the Chamber intends to make a submission tonight to the Kent Comm ission on that very question.

So perhaps if you want to know the answer you can obtain that information by attending the hearing in question and the position of the Ch amber will be outlined to you, I am sure. MR. WALDING: And I would read it in one of the papers tomorrow morning, I presume. MR. KRISTJANNSON: You might read it tonight before it's given, I'm not sure but it's possible. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Kristjannson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Desjardins. Do you have a question? MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Reimer is available for questioning also. MR. REIMER: I'm available.

I'm not sure that I can answer the questions because I'm not a lawyer but I could try. MR. DESJARDINS: Neither am I a lawyer so . . . my reason, this is not slighting Mr. Kristjannson but it would appear that he has been directed to prepare a brief and he's trying to interpr et it fairly as he understands the Winnip eg Chamber would want it although in certain instances he disagrees with the content of this brief. MR. REIMER: If I may interrupt; not the Chairman, it was the position of the Chamber of Commerce Council that . . . MR. DESJARDINS: Did I say the Chairman? - the Chamber. MR. REIMER: That's right.

I misun derstood you perhaps. I understood you to say as the Chairman would want him to and it's ... MR. DESJARDINS: I meant the Winnip eg Chamber of Com merce if I said otherwise. Now I went along 323

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 with many of these things and in fact on the official languages I understand and I agree with the change should there be enshrined in a Bill of Rights, but there is a concern that I have. Mr . Kristjannson seemed to say, and I want to hear it from you, sir, that the Winn ipeg Chamber of Com merce agrees and feels that the majority rules in all instances, that there are no other rights that should be enshrined and it should be all left to politicans in all instances no matter how fundamental the rights may be.

Now he explained that this was not his position but he felt that it was the position of the Cham ber of Commerce. I would hope that you would say that there was a mistake but can you clarify that for me, that the majority rules on anything, they can take rights and give them and . . . MR. REIMER: I think what we'r e saying, Mr. Desjardins, is that we feel that, in general and of cou rse there are exce ptions, some which Mr . Schroeder mentioned when he spoke, but we feel that in general our rights in Canada have been better protected under our system than they have been under the American system.

The entrenchment of rights in the Constitution, as I understand it, is more like the American system, and all the Chamber is saying that in fact we think our system is better. Now you may disagree with that and that's fine, but that's the position the Chamber Council takes . . . MR. DESJARDINS: Fine. Let me then, there won't be an argument on this, you repeatedly have said, through Mr. Kristjannson, that you agree with the principle, the intent, of language rights. Now can you tell me that if it is left to the provinces now, that these rights will be better protected, and isn't this a case in point, an example,

whereas in The BNA Act there was provision, guarantee of certain rights in Manitoba, the legislation passed

an Act taking those rights away and it was only the court that returned these rights because it wasn't constitutional. You are satisfied then that that should be done and it could be changed from province to province? You talk about the unity of Canada. You think that this is conducive to unity in Canada, let the province decide what they are going to do with the minority official language? You don't think there is any need ... A question has been asked also for many people that did not agree with the principle of entrenched Bill of Rights.

They have been asked if they agreed that it should be done in the case of language rights and many of them who disagreed in general, agreed that they could accept that. Now what is your position on that, or do you have a position on that? MR. REIMER: I am not sure if I'll be answering the question, but our position is that we think that the Charter of Rights should not be entrenched in the Constitution, that protection of rights should be left to the legislators. MR. DESJARDINS: No matter what rights? MR. REIMER: That's our position. MR. DESJARDINS: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions to either Mr.

Kristjannson or Mr. Reimer from members of the committee? Mr. Einarson. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr . Chairman, I would like to pose a question to Mr. Reimer but if necessary he could seek the assistance of Mr. Kristjannson.

In the discussions that we have when we talk about language rights and in a school division where we have, say, 50 percent French and 50 percent English being taught in the school and the present time we have the jurisdiction under the trustees - that's our system of operating today - and if for some reason parents whose children are being taught in another school, 75 percent French and 25 percent English, they want their children taught 50 - 50, they go to the school trustee and he den ies this, do I un derst and, and maybe Mr.

Kristjannson could elaborate on this, that those parents who feel that their rights are not being protected under the system we have of educating our children today, could go to the courts, if their language rights were entrenched, could go to the courts and seek a decision by a judge to decide and overrule that school trustee? MR. KRIST JANNSON: We're talking about how the basic human rights should be interpreted.

I would thin k that if you take a basic human right like language ins truction right and entrench it in a Constitution, then of course, the courts are going to in terpr et what that right means and if the

interpretation is in favour of the applicant, then so be it. That's exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about entrenchment. Now it may well be that the right, when interpreted by the court, is not what the citizen or landed immigrant or whatever the status may be of the applicant, thought was going to happen. lt was going to be a far different matter then getting that changed because it involves a change in the Constitution which will involve a greater number of people than just one legislature I don't know whether that answers what you ... MR. EINARSON: Yes, but it poses a second question.

Then having the decision made by the judge and just for hypothetical reasons or situations whereby a decision made by the judge was not in agreement with the person who is seeking the right, then what course does that citizen have when a decision has been rendered by the court or by a judge? MR. KRIST JANNSON: What position does any litigant have now who loses a case before a judge. He's got to accept it, that's the way our law is.

If he doesn't like it, it's too bad, it's unfortunate, that's the law. it's been interpreted by the judge accordingly and he must accept it and in our kind of society, that's the limitation you might say on the freedom that we have to live in our type of civilization. MR. EINARSON: So on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Kristjannson, if those rights were not entrenched but they were left up to the Parliament and Legislatures and a decision was made through the laws of our land and that person didn't like the decision that was handed down, what course of action does that person have? MR.

KRIST JANNSON: Well if they'r e not entrenched, presumably if they can become the 324 I

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 majority they will change their representative at the Legislature, but as my learned friend has pointed out here, we might have dif ferent laws in di fferent provinces throughout the country but the recourse in any one particular province is through their elected representatives, presumably the majority elects the people who make the laws. If you can change it, fine, if you can't, then you're subjected to it. MR. EINARSON: So, Mr.

Chairman, in spite of the fact that I migh t be a member of a major ity government, one who may hope that would be a responsible politician, in dealing with a right that was coming from one of a minority group, could still see to it that that person in a minority group could be fairly dealt with, if it is done under the Legislatures of Parliament. MR. KRIST JANNSON: I would expect a responsible member of the Legislature to do exactly that, protect the right of the minority. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Westbury. MRS. JUNE WESTBURV (Fort Rouge): Thank you. Through you to Mr.

Kristjannson. Do you feel, Mr. Kristjannson, that it is reasonable then that the rights of individuals should be changed as the party in power changes, that it should be done as whimsically as that? MR. KRIST JANNSON: We're not saying that's what is going to happen. MRS. WESTBURV: Well, I'd like to suggest to you that it has happened within the past three or four years. MR.

KRIST JANNSON: lt happened in the past but it may not necessarily happen on every occasion. it's happened on some occasions but not necessarily on every occasion. lt's one form of government that seems to have worked and all the Chamber is saying to you is we think we should continue it. MRS. WESTBURV: That it see ms to work for whom? MR. KRIST JANNSON: lt seems to work for the people of the province. MRS. WESTBURV: For the people in power, people with the power. MR. KRIST JANNSON: Are you going to have two kinds of government, one for those not in power and one for those that are in power. MRS.

WESTBURV: People with the power. No, I don't think we should have two kinds of government but we'd need a government that is sensitive to its minorities. Do you feel that the governments - you know, we can talk about an ideal future but we have to live with the immediate and far past and do you feel that native people of Manitoba have been fairly dealt with by the Legislatures of this province? MR. KRIST JANNSON: I don't know. I'm not prepared on the part of the Chamber to answer that question. MRS. WESTBURV: I'd love to get you to answer it on behalf of Mr. Kristjannson. MR. KRIST JANNSON: There's no way ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: To Mrs. Westb ury. He's representing the Chamb er as Chairman of a sub­ committee and Mr. Reimer was here as President of the Winn ipeg Chamber. MR. KRISTJANNSON: I'd be glad, if you want to hold a similar meeting involving that one question, to come down and give you my personal brief on the matter. I'd like to consider my ... MRS. WESTBURV: I realize that Mr.

Kristjannson doesn't have to answer any questions and I think it's very easy for people to be able to be selective in which questions they will answer but I think it's, I'm disappointed -(In terject ion)- of cou rse it's his right, and I'm disappointed that that is happening however because I'm genuinely inter ested in his reaction. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. As I said earlier, both Mr. Kr istjannson and Mr. Reimer are representing groups here that arrived at a consensus and prepared a brief. They may not agree with their own briefs 100 percent but they are here to present the brief and Mr.

Reimer read the brief as the President and Mr. Kristjannson is the Chairman of a sub-commit tee, and accompanied Mr. Reimer to answer questions to the best of their ability on behalf of the Chamber, and not on behalf of either one of them as individuals. MRS. WESTBURV: May I reword my question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may try again, Mrs. Westbury. MRS. WESTBURV: In making its deliberations, did the Cha mber consider the point, have the native people in Mani toba been treated fairly by the Legislatures of this province? MR.

KRIST JANNSON: That, I don't think was brought to the attention or consi deration of the members of the Council of the Chamber. MRS. WESTBURV: Did they consider this point: Have women been treated equally and fairly by the Legislatures of this province? MR. KRIST JANNSON: I'm sure they've considered it from time to time but not at the particular time that I ... MRS. WESTBURV: Not in preparing that brief. All right, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schroeder, do you have a further question? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, to Mr. Reimer in view of his comment on the position of the Cham ber on entrenche d right s.

And I'm just asking him to comment on the proposition that possibly there may be a feel ing out there that every year we move toward more justice in society and that there's less 325

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 and less likelihood that Leg is latu res will ride roughshod. I had referred to the Japanese instance, the Ukrainian Canadian committee indicated to the federal comm ittee that there were Ukrai nian Canadians interned during the First World War, there were many thi ngs that happened, but I would suggest that these things don't necessarily die off and we're not necessarily getting into a society where we're getting away from those things.

I would point out the uprise in the membership in the Ku­ Kiux-Kian in the United States in the last few years, - in fact, one of their members won the Democratic nomination for the Un ited States Senate in the United States and fortunately was defeated but those types of things can happen. In the country of Iran, you have the majority; we have been told before this committee that the majority are killing off a minority religious sect known as the Bahai. These things are happening.

I'm just wondering whether you could comment on your position in relation to the fact that it appears that society need not necessarily be getting better all the time. Do you feel that this will adequately protect the rights of the minorities, the ones who are not heard? MR. KRIST JANNSON: I think the Chamber has put its brief to you, gentlemen, on our position regarding the question of entrenchment of the Constitution. At the present time we feel that the interests of the people would be best served by the present system of legislative rule. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions to either Mr. Kristjannson or Mr.

Reimer? Seeing none, to both of you gentlemen, thank you very kindly for being with us today. Perhaps at this time I might mention to members or persons present that the committee will be sitting till 5:00 p.m. today. I don't know whether the committee will reconvene in January or not. That will be a decision, I'm sure made in the Legislature in the next week or two.

But if there are any groups that are on our list that we don't get to by 5:00 o'clock but they do have a prepared brief, if they present the brief to the Clerk or myself, that it will be recorded in Hansard just as if you had read it for Hansard purposes and copies will be distributed to members of the committee. But to persons who wish to come and speak freely without a brief, and there are a certain number of those, we have no mechanism of handling your particular case after 5:00 p.m. today. The gentleman at the back, do you have a question?

MR .... : Yes, I wonder in the interests of people that would like to speak it seems that the briefs are shorter than questions, and a lot of the questions are rehashe s and that there is a present cross examination which I think is really unnecessary if what the interest is is to get the briefs out. I think that's the most important thing. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I would agree with you, sir, that there is a lot of rehashing on questions but each member who asks qu est ions at this table are members of the Legislature and each of them has a right to ask a question and he can ask every single delegation the same question if he or she wishes to. MR ... . : Then I suggest, sir, for those people with briefs, they also have the right to answer only those questions that they really . . . dedicated to apply themselves and to avoid all other questions. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I'm sure you heard, sir, me saying to the Cha mber that they do not have to answer any question if they don't wish to and they only have to answer the ones pertaining to their brief if they wish. That goes for anybody that appears before our committee. MRS. WESTBURV: Even legislators have rights entrenched, Mr. Cha irperson? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm ju st the Ch airman of the Com mittee. Known to you as Cha irperson. We have a number of persons that are on our list that asked to be heard today, and one at the very top of our list that we have avoided calling at this present time, is a Mrs.

Friesen from Headingly. Would she be present? I have continually put you r name down for this afternoon and left you at the top of the list. You are the next one I will call. This is Mrs. Friesen from Headingly. After Mrs. Friesen, to give other persons an indication as to � who I have on my list, I have an Alice Richmond, would she be present? What about Mrs. Adele Smith? You are present. The n we have Marcel Mclvor from the Metis Confederacy. What about Henr y Elias? Is Henr y Elias present? Brenda Scarc ella? Is Lawrence Peterso n, or a Mr s Asselstine?

That's the next eight or nine names that 1 have before me, so hopefully we can do Mrs. Friesen and Mr s. Smith. Mr s. Friesen, do you , fir stly, represent yourself or do you represent a group? MRS. FRIESEN: I represent myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: And do you have a prepared text with copies. MRS. FRIESEN: No, I do not. I have a few notes but not copies. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. You may proceed please. MRS. FRIESEN: Tha nk you . Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Democracy is ind eed at work.

I would like to say how pleased I am to be able to exercise this democratic privilege and speak to you today. lt is a freedom dearly fought and paid for in two great wars. We must honour and respect and guard these freedoms. This, then, brings me to the reason for my being here today. lt is the very grave and real concern I feel that these freedoms we have enjoyed for over a hundred years just might be eroded by the present federal gove rnment's proposed constitutional package.

Hopefully reason will prevaiL For 11 0 years, new Canada, also now known as western Canada, has been trying to get central Canada to pay attention to our legitimate complaints. Whether these complaints came from Riel at Fort Garry in 18 69 or more recently regarding the natural resource management of the 19 70s. We in western Canada are not an extension of central Canada but we are unique. We have different origins, a different ethnic mix, a different history. We have different thought processes and different ways of reacting. Western Canada is a distinct variety that 326

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 has been grafted on to the central Canada root stalk in 18 70 and 1905. At this time also began the great driv e for immigrants by Sir Clifford Sifton. More than one­ and-a-half million immigrants were attracted to the Canadian prairies between 18 70 and 19 15 . Many came via the United States of America from Britain, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, to name but a few. Immigrants also came directly to the great prairies from the Ukraine, from Poland, from Holland, from Austria and the Asian countries. My ancestors arrived here in 18 74 and became farmers in the Red River Valley.

They chose to come to live under the British common law system of government and they struggled to survive. They also struggled to learn the English language, the language of their newly adopted Queen. They learned this language in order to be able to communicate with all t:1e other ethnic immigrants. This then became the language that serves all minorities as a vehicle of communication. lt serves as a uniting force. Through this we have managed to live and work together, not by entrenched linguistic rights but rather by mutual respect and genuine concern of human being for human being.

Our governments, both provincial and federal, allowed us to speak our mother tongue languages in our homes and churc hes and taught in public schools where numbers warranted. We all enjoyed these freedoms. Then along comes a man with a vision, his very own vision of the kind of Canada he would like to create. This man has said of himself, "The only constant factor to be found in my thinking over the years has been opposition to accepted opinion. In high school I had already made up my mind to swim against the tide.

I have never been able to accept any discipline except that which I impose upon myself." He is indeed swimming against the tide. His dinghy manned by silent Bob and by the giver and taker of grants, will not be able to save him in western Canada. The British North America Act has served us fairly well in the past. Canadians lived in relative harmony. If there were real problems in one of the central provinces, were these not to some extent the making of those people themselves? The struggle to open and develop a new country as vast as ours was and is a fantastic challenge.

Out of this struggle evolved, under the British common law system, one of the greatest countries in the world today. These problems we are experiencing at the present in Canada stem largely from the very limited vision of the group of three which arrived in Ottawa in 19 68 as Members of Parliament. One year later rumblings began with the proclamation of The Official Languages Act. Suddenly we became hyphenated Canadians. The citizens who are neither English or French had in one swoop been relegated to third class status by this Act. Slowly small differences became magnified.

Disunity had set in fuelled by the Liberal Government in Ottawa. The spirit of sharing our natural resources from western Canada with central Canada is now viewed in a different light. Sharing seems to have taken a one-way street. A sudden increase in oil and gas prices, the discovery of potash, etc., have at last awakened our eastern Members of Parliament to the fact ther e is great wea lth in the Prairies. The realization at last by the human race that these resources are finite have made them even more precious.

The agricultural and hydro power resources are renewable barring any natural disaster and we have them all. Western Canadians have always shared with central Canadians. Central Canadians are tod ay buying my grain at less than world market prices while we are still paying protected prices on all the manufactured goods they sell to us. They are still enjoying special freight rates in hidden taxes. Prairie resources have been exploited for the benefit of central Canada too long. Alberta cannot be expected to in definitely subsid ize the home heating and motoring needs of central Canadians.

The proposed charter of human and lingu istic rights to be entrenched in a new constitution by the British Parli ament would remove forever the opportunity for a change of future generations of Canadians. lt would indeed change the very fabric of our country in a very fund amental way. lt would, as our Premier has said, move us towards a republican form of government. This is not the kind of Canada I wish to leave for my children and their children. I am afraid of the many imp lications in the proposals that are not explained.

What, for instance, are the implications of the proposed charter on the individual rights and freedoms re the peace and security of the public? Will the federal Supreme Cour t ju dges, who will be charged with the

interpretation of this charter, understand conditions, aspirations and needs, in all regions of Canada? There are to be only three judges from outside the central Canada region. Four judges from Quebec and four judges from Ontario could make all decisions affecting all regions of Canada. And these are only a few of my concerns. This obsession to create a new Canada has certainly blinded the Prime Min ister to the fact that such action practically guarantees political explosion.

Western Canadians are so di senchanted with Trudeau's federalism to the point where separatist groups are being formed, and indeed enjoying large memberships. Now I urge this committee to set aside partisan politics and to co-operate on formulating a truly Canada recommendation. 1) I ur ge you to est ablish mechanisms for harmonizing the economic and in dus trial development efforts of our 11 governments; 2) To have our elected and accountable representatives retain the ultimate authority to define and reflect the basic social values of our nation; and 3) To work towards an elected and appointed Senate.

We now have 104 Senate seats. This could be reduced to 100 seats and have 50 elected and 50 appointed by the provinces Senators, two Senators from each province. Then to put all these changes to the test of longer experience before incorporating any of them in a new Constitution. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Friesen. Would you permit qu estions, Mr s. Friesen, from any members? MRS. FRIESEN: Thank you very much, Mr . Chairman. I have stated my views and I will now let the rest of the people here go on. 327

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Friesen. Next person on my list, Alice Richmond. Is Alice Richmond present? MRS ... . : Alice Richmond is not here. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mrs. Adele Smith. MRS. ADELE SMITH: I have copies here, Mr. Chairman, if anybody wishes to have them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will distribute them. Mrs. Smith, are you representing a group or are you representing . MRS. SMITH: I am representing myself and a fairly large family, many of them who have signed this document.

This is not given as a lawyer would give it but just as an individual, a Canadian of the third generation, one who has many ethnic bloods running through her veins. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to start now, Mrs. Smith? MRS. SMITH: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Westbury and gentl emen. My one and only reason for appearing here today is the very great concern I have about the direction our Canada is taking. After 12 years of flagrant misuse of federal power we can have no illusions concerning the intention of Mr. Trudeau and his cohorts to alter the very fabric of our Canadian society.

Now, I don't profess to fully understand all the ramifications of Mr. Tru deau 's proposed constitutional package. Even legal minds more attuned to such minutia don't always agree; but when seven of our provi ncial premiers, knowledgeable men all, worry about the erosion of their provincial rights, rights which were granted each province under the Statute of Westminster in December 19 31, then we citizens had better pull our heads out of the sand and listen well. it's yours and my future and our childrens' future as Manitobans and Canadians that is being tampered with.

First, the entrenchment of language rights which in nine provinces means the entrenchment of French. This is Mr.

Trudea u's pet whim and his most di visible. lt is a whim which has cost us, the taxpayers, 15 million each year, according to the Secretary of State, John Roberts' own figures in the House of Commons, December 20, 1977, to pay the salaries of these animators, they could just as well be called agitators, whose job it is to demand services in French anywhere they happen to be. lt is a lever placed in the proposed constitution to give a small minority, here in Manitoba about six percent, a permanent, special status to become a privileged group if you will, over the 94 percent of the rest of us. Yes, I know

Section 33 of the BNA Act gave the French Canadian certain langua ge rights within certain places, but for a minority group dwindling in nu mbers, the further west we go to demand increasing rights is to fly against all common sense. There are, after all, 43, 45 ethnic groups in Canada according to a census of 19 76, making Canada a multicultural mosaic. New Canadians use one language, English, in which to communicate with one another. lt was a prerequisite to making a new life here. Did any of them use pressure on any level of government for special treatment of their langu age at public expense? No.

Yet they have maintained their own distinctive cultures. Creating special status groups or privileged minorities amongst the majority will lead to friction, open hostility, social unrest and eventually repressive government measures to keep order. I grew up very close to two French Canadian towns right here in Manitoba. With its church activities, parochial schools, social gatherings, each centre radiated a distinctly French cultural flavour in spite of the nu merous English speaking residents livin g around. The French Canadian was well able to keep his culture intact without any government aid.

He never expected, nor did he want, any handouts from the public purse. Now, what changes can we look for if language rights are entrenched in a new constitution and Manitoba is forced to adopt this measure? Certainly many, if not most provincial and municipal positions will become bilingual to serve an elitist minority. This means they will be filled and then controlled by French speaking citizens only. A dupli cation of departments with a correspondin g growth in the bureaucracy to serve in both English and French will occur.

In Ottawa, bonuses have been paid to civil servants who speak French, even when the position calls for bilingualism as a qualification. This from the Winn ipeg Tribune, April 12 , 19 79. In some government departments it will be necessary to retire or let out the English speaking civil servants to accommodate the required French speaking civil servants. The cost of the growing bureaucracy will greatly escalate the cost of running our government, and if you think this is fanciful, take a look at what has happened in Ottawa.

There the bureaucracy has increased 44 percent from 19 68 to 1977, most of it due to the bilingual programs. Mr. Trudeau, who once dismissed MP s as a bunch of nobodies, would like to replace the authority of Parliament with respect to human rights by the authority of the Supreme Court whose members, and note this well, are appointed by the government in power. Unl ike parliament, the judicia ry is not accountable to the people through their elected representatives.

As a citizen I am apprehensive of having my rights and freedoms left in the hands of men who owe their positions to the government in power, especially when that government can be returned to power by a small electoral base in central Canada as is the case today. Mr. Trudeau's government has its power base in Quebec and it certainly neither understands nor speaks for that large part of Canada which exists west of the Ontario-M anitoba border.

While on the subject of human rights, it's perhaps just as well to remember that the Soviet Union has one of the best written constitutions in the world, all rights, liberties, from freedom of speech to freedom of assembly including even the freedom of territorial secession are all there, faultless, on paper. Under the provisions of the old constitution, all Canadians have enjoyed the greatest freedom of any country in the entire wo rld.

So let us now go slowly, with a profou nd desir e to ret ain the best of the old, choosing carefully and warily any new concepts which hasty leaders with questionable ambitions of 328

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 their own, might wish to place within the framework of Canada's basic laws. Because they are closer to the people, provincial governments are better able to respond to needs that differ in different parts of Canada. For this reason, I commend Mr. Lyon for his government's challenge to the supposed reforms of Mr . Trudeau's constitutional package. Quoting from an editorial from the Free Press, October 16 th, "If a provincial court challenge provides some time for sober second thought, it will be worthwhile, whatever the judges say". Thank you. I'll leave that with you, gentlemen. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you , Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith, would you permit questions from members of the committee? MRS. SMITH: Well, they become very entangling, Jon't they, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, they do, I must admit ... MRS. SMITH: The same old things rehashed. I'm not a politician. I have my reasons for feeling the way I do. I do not want to become entangled and I've been here for two afternoons and I'v e seen how certain members will entangle. MR. EINARSON: On a point of order here, perhaps since we had Mrs. Jensen give her brief and now Mrs. Smith, maybe you could check, Mr.

Chairman, to see how many more briefs we could be listening to this afternoon. Having completed that, if we have some time available, perhaps then we could ask the witnesses some questions later. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's the point that Mrs ... . MRS. SMITH: Some I will answer, and some I will not MR. EINARSON: We know that Mr. Chairman, I'm just pointing out that if there is any more to be heard MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken.

I think though that I must operate with consistency and I have asked everyone from Day One whether they would accept questions and I've made it very clear that nobody is compelled to answer questions from members of the committee in any way, shape or form and if Mrs. Smith doesn't wish to get involved in the questioning, and sometimes the questioning is a little deeper than it perhaps should be, you have a right ... MRS. SMITH: I have noticed that considerably, Mr.

Chairman, and I think I have stated my views, they're carefully thought out, and views that we have lived with for a number of years and we're very pleased to have this opportunity to express them to you. There is no change, this is the feeling of many of the people I go with, many of the family, there's a large family of us in Manitoba, and they all endorse this 10 0 percent Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very kindly, Mrs. Smith, for your presentation . Mr. Blake. MR. DAVID BLAKE (Minnedosa): Yes, I ju st wanted, Mr. Chairman, to commend Mrs. Smith on her presentation.

She certainly represents my views and the wishes of most of those in western Canada. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vincent, if you would come to the microphone. If you have a question to ask the committee, let's have it recorded. Identify yourself first please. MR. BARRY VINCENT: I am Barry Vinc ent. Pursuant to the suggestions I personally would be willing to, having presented my brief, then allow some one else to present their brief and remain after everyone has been heard before 5:00 and/or in January, if that was to be found in order. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Mrs. Friesen and Mrs .

Smith have sort of set a trend and perhaps that might be the case. But we must be consistent and if members of the committee wish to ask questions and if members of the public making presentations wish to answer questions, let's be consistent From the Metis Confederacy of Ma nitoba, Winn ipeg area, is Marcelle Mclvor present? Mr. Mclvor. Didn't I tell you last night, Mr. Mclvor, some time after 3:00 you would likely get on? MR. MARCELLE MciVOR: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Mrs.

Westbury, gentlemen: I believe we have come to a consensus within the confederacy that we are pro-entrenchment and we are pro-court implementation of a Bill of Rights. But I believe that the proposed Bill of Rights as we see it is negligent in many of the rights which we cou ld have as Canadians encompass in a Charter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mclvor, could I interrupt you for one moment and ask you if you will be reading from a presentation and if you are, will you have available copies for the committee or will you be going from notes? MR. MciVOR: I am going from notes and have a minor presentation. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Therefore you don't have copies for the committee. MR. MciVOR: I don't, I have one here but . MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, nobody is compelled to bring copies but members of the committee would like to get copies from persons who have them and read along with them. lt seems to be their favourite way of handling those types of presentation. But carry on please. · MR. MciVOR: There are rights which we do not see in the proposed Charter, consumer rights, the rights of Civil Service.

We have a large number of people employed in the Civil Service throughout Canada and as we discoverd and as the committee has not heard two of our members which were prepared to present at I believe Brandon and Swan River, because these people are within a government service of one sort or another, they have been asked from within their Service to just calm down and keep out of the political range. 329

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 Now I do not suggest that it is this committee or that it is due to the actions of this government that this has happened, but when an individual is willing to work in any organizat ion, whether it be the confederacy or the Conservativ e Party, the NDP Party, the Liberal, I believe that just because that person is a civil servant they should have the right to be ab le to work in the context of whatever organization that they wish to as well.

And as I say, two present ations were not gi ven because the powers that be above them, have suggested that they lay low in their political activities. We have also not seen any rights in regard to the police in Canada. Oftentimes the Metis people and many other Canadians are approached by police. Oftentimes we do not know what our rights are and I believe oftentimes the police also do not what their rights are in many situations. Rights for Civil Service and police could be considered in a Cha rter. Rights for children also could be included and should be included in a Charter of Rights afor all Canadians.

I will go on with the presentation prepared by the Confederacy now. The Metis Confederacy of Manitoba would like to take advantage of this opportunity to present a statement in regard to proposed Canadian Constitution. We believe a serious error is being committed in the proposed Constitution by refusing or neglecting to recognize aboriginal right and title for Metis and non-status Indian people. This serious omission to refuse to entrench these rights in the Charter reflects a lack of understanding on the part of the Canadian government.

In view of the social, economic and cultural realities of the Metis and non­ status Indians, a definite distinction between these people and other ethnic groups must be made. In the course of a hundred years, native people have been forced to the outer fringes of modern society. This alienation is seriously threatening a way of life and a tradition which has great historic value. Amendment No. 24 of the proposed constitution is vague and insufficient.

We believe that it should be expanded to include the recognition of aboriginal right and title of the half-breed in Canada. lt is our position that the patriation of Canada's Constitution should not be allowed until this matter of aboriginal right and title be acknowledged and entrenched in it. The Metis Conf ederacy of Manitoba feel that a provision must be included in which the rights of Metis and non-status India ns be articulated in a definite and clear manner.

In order for Canada to consider herself a respected and honou rable member of the global community, it is our opinion that she must give much greater consideration to her indigenous people. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mclvor. Would you permit qu est ions from memb ers of the committee? MR. MciVOR: No, I would not. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir, for your presentat ion. Is Henr y Elias present? Brenda Scarce lla? Lawrence Peter son? Mrs. Asta Asselstine? I see a lady with her hand up. Did I call your name? Are you Mrs. Asselstine? You are Mrs. Asselstine? MRS. ASTA ASSELSTINE: I am. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Asselstine, are you representing a group or are you here as an individual citizen? MRS. ASSELSTINE: I feel I represent an awful lot of people at the grassroots. I think ther e are thousands I can represent say that because I don't think many grassroots people are here to represent themselves. But I am in no official capacity to say that. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mrs. Asselstine ... MRS. ASSELSTINE: I do represent my deep concerns for Canada because I am a Canadian. MR. CHAIRMAN: My second qu est ion, Mrs. Asselstine is do you have a prepared presentation and if so, do you have copies? MRS.

ASSELSTINE: I only have my own because it's costing so much money for me to type out and xerox all this I have. I would like to ask you one question if I may; what you would desire. If there are many people waiting to be heard maybe I could just do a vocal one providing I can have this recorded. So it's up to how many people are there that need to have a chance to speak. MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe the best thing, if you could just step aside from the mike and I could ask persons who are present if they would by a show of hands indicate if they are on our lists.

There are four The time now being 3:35, I think that this committee could very easily hear from each of the five or six persons that are present today, if their briefs are fairly short and if the questions from the members of the committee are kept very short. MRS. ASSELSTINE: Mine is a little bit long but . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, as I said earlier, we would be more than happy to take your printed copy and have it recorded for Hansard and if you wanted to touch on the highlights with an oral presentation, we will see that your full report gets into Hansard if it is typed. MRS.

ASSELSTINE: And read, please, because it's no good there if it isn't read. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Hansard is distributed to all members of the Leg islature and I am sure most members will read back for reference purposes, but we will have copies of your presentation submitted to the active members of this committee. MR. LLOYD G. HYDE (Portage la Prairie): Mr . Chairman, point of order. I'm wondering if you could ascertain the length of brief that Mrs. Asselstine has before us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, she said she has a fairly lengthy one. MR. HYDE: No, but . . . MRS.

ASSELSTINE: it's not that lengthy because it's my handwriting and it looks like a lot but . 330 - - 11 -

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Westbury, for you and Mr. Walding, because you have a shown a fair amount of interest in this committee, I almost consider you committee members except for voting privileges. And I will ask the Clerk that whatever other members receive in the way of copies, the two of you should receive them. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that 15 minutes is really qu ite a long time, it would allow for quite a lengthy presentation and it would be more than that if we divided the . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs.

Asselstine, do you feel that you could give us your full presentation in 15 or 20 minutes? MRS. ASSELSTINE: Well, I could start then when you want me to stop . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. At least try. MRS. ASSELSTINE: Thanks very much. I feel a little sort of inferior because I do come from the grassroots and I am an immigrant and I have had to fight inferiority for many years. I'm just nicely getting over it a few years past.

But anyway, I would like to tell you that this, I don't know what we're speaking for here, in a way, except to get more patriotic which is an excellent reason for being here because I think we need patriatism today more than ever before in history And I would like to say this is what 1 got from the federal government, or my husband, I do n't remember which was on it. They have already done the Constitution here, sending it out I suppose to everybody else if we got one. I don't understand it. Nu mber one, they are not going to consider my views if that is so. I'll have to depend on Mr.

Lyon and his government to represent my views. These are already done. That alarms me because I thought they were going to get grassroots proposals. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Westbury and all fellow citizens, I really come very prayerfully here with deep concerns and I'm not used to this kind of work so excuse any errors.

I'll get my points across, I will just give you a quick survey of what I am worried about and that is I am really worried - this is off the cuff - but I am really worried about our traditions and our heritage and I am very worried that it's going to be very much eroded if we are going to be entrenched in this Constitution, all these rights. I feel we have Mr. Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights, and I have studied it with great care and I really think that's a marvelous traditional ... it shows our heritage, it shows the people who founded our nation. We were built on the Christian heritage.

I don't care if it's Catholic or Protestant or any other but it's Christian, that's the big thing, and we've got to pull together. I would really ask that the committee or somebody would study this thoroughly because this is the one I would prefer with amendments depending on as we grow as a nation. Changes have been taking place and will be taking place but I still think we must remember our English, French, Christian heritage. That is the most important thing of all, because without that there would be no Canada. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to carry on with this written one.

I am a Canadian I feel in probably the purest and truest form, because when I was only eight years old and my father gave up my allegiance to the country in which I was born, therefore I had no say in it. As a class one Canadian I have gratitude and thanksgiving for being raised and trained as a good citizen by my good parents who follow the Ten Commandments. They didn't teach it but they lived it. My allegiance and loyalty to God and the Queen and family life and respect for other countries and for a healthy and hard-working lifestyle.

I feel as true Canadian, I deplore the actions taken by the past governments, many years ago even, which have caused the erosion of my Canadian traditions and my heritage. We were glad to come to Canada and thankful because there was no room where we lived. My father had been in the States before and back again to my native land and then he was glad to come back to Canada. Why was Dominion of Canada removed? Why was Dominion? Dominion comes from Psalm 22 and it gave dignity and worth and respect to Canada, as Mr.

Forsie says in a new book I was reading. lt gave di gni ty and worth and respect to Canada as a Christian country and a nation. That's number one. In 15 34, Jacques Cartier brought the fleur-de-lis, it was planted on Canadian soil and Canada was claimed for the French, of Judeo Christian heritage again. In 17 63, France under General Montcalm was defeated by the English under General Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham.

Again it was the people of Judeo Chris tian heri tage, the only religion we true Canadians, who built this Canada of ours, to whom we owe a debt to, is the Indian, because his spirituality - I just attended a spirituality conference by the Indians a few weeks ago - his spirituality and traditions and heritage were taken from him. And that wasn't done intentionally but through ignorance, because we didn't know the Indians in those days very much. All effort on that part of the Dominion of Canada must be to continue to restore the Indian people's language, culture, spirituality and traditions.

There were 300 Indian languages at one time and not much remains of them. Therefore, as Canadians , the Uni ted States too, are the only countries which Indians can claim as their homeland. All sensible efforts should be done to restore Indian language and history and culture.

People who settled Canada can go to Europe - I can go back to my own native land, it hasn't been taken over by the communists yet, thank God, I hope it never will be - Asia and other continents, we can find a written knowledge of our roots but the Indian has only Canada, and as yet little is written in comparison to the French and English history. As a true Canadian, I deplore the erosion of my heri tage as a Cana dian, na mely: (2) not only Dominion was taken away, but taking away my Christian flag. Don't let anybody tell you we are not sore at heart over that. We're sick over it. I was sick over it.

I was working with Cubs and I taught them the meaning of our flag and when the new flag came I wrote to Mr. Diefenbaker, I wrote to different ones, I said, don't get rid of that flag, we don't want it taken away from us. Nobody heard us. Canadian Ensign symbolizes strongly our heritage and for which three of my brothers fou ght and thousands of loyal patriotic Canadians in two world 331

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 wars. They fought for the freedoms and democracy and jus tic e and our right for parliame ntar y government, religious freed om, representation by population, and other things too.

This meaningful flag, or Canadian Ensign as they called it because they had not officially adopted it yet, too bad, should have been adopted as Canada's official flag in our Constitution because only the Indians and Eskimos were not represented on this flag and this neglect could have been corrected easily by having the fleur­ de-lis, the three lions for England I believe it is, and one for Scotland and the fleur-de-lis for France and the harp for Ireland, and the three united maple leafs, where I fit in, at the bottom, three maple leafs joined together representing all other nationalities that came to Canada, or have founded Canada.

We weren't the fou nding nations, I can't claim that because I'm a second generation - fashioned in beadwork. That could have been overcome, with beadwork, I sort of feel sick over that but I had envisioned and suggested that our flag as it was then cou ld be done in beadwork repres enting the founding race which is from which we grew at that time. The Eskimos, I don't know, we could have done something with that too, instead of throwing the whole flag out. Fashion in beadwork, if the Indians would agree and the Eskimos would agree. This leaves only the Eskimos unrepresented on our good old flag.

Like the flag of India and different other countries, which I taught in Cubs too, everything that was shown on our old Canadian Ensign had symbolic meaning dating back as far as St. Andrew who was crucified as a martyr for his religious faith, that white cross on the Union Jack. And also the cross of St. George represented our fight against all things evil, from England, and then the cross of Ir eland representing St. Patrick, who went to Gaul, France, to learn Christianity, and he came back to Ireland to become its first bishop and he taught the mystery of the Trinity using the Irish shamrock.

On the fly end of this wonderful flag which has been thrown out by unthinking, not very deep thinking people I'm afraid, I hate to say it but I feel it's true, on that fly end of our Canadian Ensign flag were represented the French, the fleur-de - lis, the harp of Ir eland representing Irish settlers in Canada who founded Canada too, the three lions and the one single lion representing Scots and English pioneers who settled and built Canada. All other nationali ti es were represented, I've said that before, except the Indians and Eskimos.

All our new flag did was erase my Canadian heritage and my tradition because I have no tradition except Canada, except for the tough, hard-working, you don't eat if you don't work principle, policies, commandments which my parents gave me, thank God. I didn't appreciate them as much as I should have when they were alive which resulted in a melting pot of all nationalities who originated Canada except for the Indian and Eskimo.

You see, all our heritage and traditions, to me it was lost when we lost that flag. lt was lost, nobody knows and nobody cares. lt's a melting pot idea now of all nationalities who originated in Canada except the Indian and Esk imo being erased comp letely from our new meaningless flag. When I was teaching Cubs I wrote and tried to find, what can I tell the boys about the new flag? Nothing. They had nothing to say. So I read it into my own way and I said, well, I'm a Christian, I'm going to say, if your sins are scarlet, they shall be white as snow. That's my new

interpretation for our flag which was forced upon us. No. 3, regarding priorities, oh yes, and I want to continue with how erosion took place of our Canadian heritage. Likewise with the recently forced metric system, I don't understand it and I'm nearly 60 years old and I don't want to start all over again to learn all this new stuff. My children, too, are the same way. The celsius scale, my father, when it was very very cold, he'd say, well, I think it's 40 degrees below, I think I better take you in the sleigh box.

We had to walk three miles to school back and forth and he says, and the poor old father, I used to think I was frozen when I got to school in that sleigh box but he must have been really cold when he got home, three miles back again by horse and sleigh. All these must be restored in the Constitution. I would like to see all that restored in our Constitution to make us truly Canadian. Everybody says, I don't know what a Canadian is. I know what a Canadian is, because I am one.

And I think I am one of the purest because I have no nationality, I have a little tiny bit of my mother tongue, but Canada was our adopted land and we are Canadians. Regarding priorities for a new Constitution, we true Canadians have this skeleton framework on which we Canadians have been building since The BNA Act was agreed upon in 18 67 and even before that, because I can remember 17 63 was the fight with French and English. In 1774 was The Quebec Act. I learned history when I went to school. 17 91 was the Constitutional Act.

And they divided Upper and Lower Canada into Quebec and Ontario and then later on all this kind of happened but we tend to forget, and I worry really very much about the thousands of new immigrants who are coming to Canada who know nothing about our history. I really deplore that, and I don't think, it's like the children of today who think they have to start up here when they get married, I started down there, living in two little rooms and my six children, my six brothers and sisters and my father and mother lived in two rooms. They don't know what poverty is today. Sorry, I'm off the track.

We had been building the BNA Act, it was agreed upon. We still have that skeleton in that book I was studying. Why not use it, and keep using it another hundred years instead of changing it. lt was agreed upon in 18 67, the confederation of four provinces, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, there was not yet a Manitoba hardly at that time, and then in 1871 Manitoba emerged as a postage stamp province and Saskatchewan and Alberta just now celebrated its 75th jubilee. On Page 5 of the constitution, and that's an excellent record, I haven't read it all.

Tthis reform in 19 80, there it states plainly the terms and duties for the federal government and for the provincial governments, and the amendments as necessary change can be voted upon as time goes on because we're not closing, why entrench it, we're just going to close it up. We're going to explode if you do that because we are now millions of more Canadians from all over the wor ld, tho usands coming every month, we'v e got to accommodate the future. 332

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 19 60 saw the Canadian Bill of Rights for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms assented to on the 10th of August 1960. I'm referring to this Canadian Human Rights Bill, which is not accepted in the courts. Why, I ask why, is this not upheld by the courts? I have been told this approved bill does not stand up in court. This needs further explanation to satisfy my Canadian and human and fund amental rights because parts of it are ignored and our very Judeo Christian heritage and traditions are ignored.

Let no one forget the Parliament of Canada affirms that the Canadian nation is fou nded on princ iples that ackno wledge the su prem acy of God, and I understand they're going to make it throw out God now. That is calamity for our whole Canada. There's an element who want to do that. And it's also based upon God, the supremacy of God and the dignity and the worth of the human person and the position of the family as society of free men and free institutions and this we must not forget.

Except we could add probably rights for the multicultural, like myself, multicultural groups and I su ppose the Indians must be remembered in it in the

preamble and it affirms also that men and institutions remain free, and this is so important, only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law. I cou ld say so much about the morals here because if we had our Judeo Ch ristian heritage properly taught and understood, we would have no worries with morals or spiritual or laws. We wouldn't have to be changing laws to suit every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along.

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada. Therefore, the Queen, she approved this and it was consented to by the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, and the Bill, I was going to read it but I haven't got time to read it. I have brought copies for each of you. I wish you would take it because it is really good and it's hard to read, I found.

That is so important to see a Canadian Bill of Rights. Now comes in this new 19 80 Bill of Rights, tells us June 10th, 1980, ensures us the Canadians, if a new Constitution is forced upon us that this will take time. Well, I'm not giving us time. I think now that we have become patriotic and become more and more patriotic, I think every citizen in Canada should have a right to come to this hearing, hearings like this. I don't say you people who are so important in leadership should just spend all your time.

You've got a committee to hear all other people, I would recommend it because I think it's going to make a better Canada if we do, if every person, every immigrant knows Canada. This will take time to achieve, it says in this new one. And also a full review that both the federal and provincial governments must participate.

They have given us that reassurance and then the Government of Canada, after intensive work, it says inten sive work, they promised us intensive work, they would do intensive, this should be with un derst anding, adopt some or all of the list of proposed items that they have listed in that book in the new Canadian Constitution. So they are not giving us what they promised us. That's one thing I feel.

If this is pushed through, this would be contrary to their statements of promise which reassured Canadians: 1) That a full review of all constitutional measures now applying to our federation be made previous to any changes, it has got to be made previous to any changes. 2) The whole task constitutes a great enterprise and will take time to ach ieve.

Not all of it can be accomplished at once, but my question is, why then cannot Canadian government and the provinces, as well as the federal, wait until all is done if all they want is to prove is to demonstrate to the people of Canada that tangible progress is being made. We know progress is being made and why do they have to prove it to us by passing the Constitution right away. There is no need for that. Already there is tangible action being made on the Canadian Government's list of proposed items which threatens to become the subject of early adoption as part of the new Canadian Constit ution.

I deplor e thi s because it is much too hasty and incomplete. 1) A Statement of Principles: The 19 60 Canadian Human Rights Bill, 1960, should be re-implemented and accepted in the courts, particularly the

preamble pertaining to the supremacy of God, the dignity and the worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions, and add to this, the recognition of the Ind ians, Eski mos, and the multicult ural groups.

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect and spiritual values and the rule of law and being desirous of enshrining these principles in the human rights and the fundamental freedoms derived from them in the Bill of Rights, which shall respect Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensur e the protection of the righ ts and freedoms in Canada. I believe ther e never can be in Canada an entrenchment of the human conscience. I saw them on television.

Entrench the conscience, and he rushed over it fast, and he rushed over the language and he rushed over a whole bunch of things and I think, how can people do that and decide that in a minute. Conscience - conscience is what you learn from your parents. Conscience is what you learn from your community. Conscience is your home life you might say. it's instilled on you from birth. That's your conscience, a human conscience.

All Canadians in this Canada of ours with this hodge-podge of nationalities and religions and sex and cults and Satan worshi ppers, you name it, they have a conscience too and they have opposing ideas. Now if entrenched the conscience of a person, and I sure would love to have mine entrenched and I am sure they would, because there is so much we don't know, we're not God, so this must be enforced by law. Therefore, these things if it's entrenched, it has to be enforced by law. What does that make the Prime Mini ster? lt makes him a dictator because you have to enforce the law. We don't want that. Yes, a dictator.

Is this what Canada wants in the future? I say no. Laws must be made in such a way that they can be enforced. We saw the mess we got into when 333

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 we had that massage parlour deal. We worried ourselves sick and grey-haired over that long enough and I hope it's cleared up by now. lt has been said no one can enforce law to deal with morals, ethics and spiritual values. They say, oh, you can't do that by law. Of course you can't, no way. You can't entrench law, that is, laws can't entrench morals and spiritual life. This can only be true if Christian values are at the bottom of it, our tradition of Canadianism.

So Christian values and Judeo-Christian heritage religion if it's practiced daily, we can enforce the morals and the spiritual values, study our religions and practice it daily and even then we all know we have to have laws, red lights for driving safety and so on, because Christians are often ignorant too and neglectful too and imperfect, so therefore we do need laws but sensible laws. Sometimes, though not intentional, conscience is a human being's ability to know right from wrong.

Some people do not have a conscience because a conscience is developed through learning and knowledge from parents and others in the community and elsewhere. I'm reading - If all people respected the Supremacy of God, the worth of the human person and the position of the family of all races; and understood that men and institutions remain free only when all people know their moral and spiritual values and the rule of law, there would be little use for laws because people automatically would know right from wrong. That's not original. I had to really study Prince Phillip's address at the St. Boniface Hospital.

This came out of it, and I knew it before but I couldn't put it into words. He did, he put in to words. We would automatically know the spiritual values and morals and we don't need the laws if we already know them. If each is pract icing one's religion, Ju deo­ Christians conscience or at least a philosophy of life or any true religion and I must interject this, I hope you will stay overtime, I would hope I am not putting somebody else out back here. But the thing is for a philosophy of life of any true religion, conscience, because most of the people came with a . . .

I know near where I was brought up, they had this little old church, the first thing they got was their church. They had to bury their dead in the cemetery in the church. Before that they used a school house to worship in. So this is it. They were mostly all Christians. If the Government of Canada entrenches freedom of conscience and religion - and religion, think of it, that's another 2,000 years before that can happen. We can't do it right away. Where thousands today have little conscience and often no religious roots, what will become of the rest?

We will become in Canada a nest of confusion and chaos. lt has been predicted and rightly so, I believe, that if we abandon the Christian doctrine, we shall most certainly revert to the state of jungle warfare. The test of greatness - this is important - of the human being is the extent to which individuals can be trusted to obey self-imposed laws. That is worth its weight in gold. it's the way people themselves can do it without having laws to force one to do it. People cannot impose or self impose a religion they do not know.

I was an agnostic, I guess I was an agnostic, I didn't know religion because I had no church. I was a Lutheran and there was no Lutherans arou nd there. We had no church at all and we never went to Sunday School, just my father's and mother's Ten Comma ndments, and do good unto others, help others, and serve people, help others. So a religion they do not know, many people have a religion they do not even know, nor be guided by a conscience, some are not even guided by conscience. They do not have or know what it's all about.

If people knew good morals, spiritual values and ethics, they would know right from wrong and would not disobey the laws of the land nearly so much. They would desire to be honest and do right. What or where does this all lead to? Every Jewish, that's the Old Testament scholars, and every Christian accept the Old Testament and the New Testament, and every one of Hindu religion or Islamic faith - you name it - or any other faith or philosophy of life must know his or her religion or philosophy of life.

How can anyone follow and live his or her religion or philosophy of life if one has none and many thousands don't have any. How does the atheist, the agnostic, or the Commu nist follow his conscience if he does not know or understand it? Therefore, I, (

a) propose and suggest first and foremost, as we look to the future of Canada with its mixed nationalities, traditions, cultures and various spiritual moral and ethical herit ages, that all Canadians study and learn thoroughly the religion of one's choice or philosophy of life. Only then can people differentiate what is right and what is wrong and follow the law of the land as respectable, knowledgeable citizens of Canada.

This should be the goal aimed for, but this cannot be entrenched in a Constitution because there is no law which can enforce these things. lt has to come from within a person and that, after much devout family training and study, which brings me to the point of these mothers and the Status of Women - I hope I don't offend anybody. I respect women; I think women have the most wonderful, most miraculous duty to perform on earth by bearing children. Men cannot bear children, only women, so women, take heed. I'd say I wish every woman would know that.

I don't think they should have children if they don't put the children first. My son's Shepherd dog looks after her babies far better than many many mothers that I see who have their babies and leave the whole nest and let them grow up like weeds often. I don't think day care centres should be the answer either. They can look after their own kids lik e my parents did. We struggled hard and we worked like slaves for it.

After much devout family training and study, which is needed, if the Government of Canada entrenched conscience and religion, the Canadian government would necessarily have to provide families, parents, who would bring up a child toward a conscience to differentiate right from wrong, and not only provide religious training to Catholic schools and Hebrew schools, but to all other religions. Two thousand years are maybe not that far but certainly we can't do it today. This would be impossible with the billions of dollars debt we Canadians have today.

Therefore, I propose a public school study of the four great religions as part of school curriculum and each religion of the great religions, Zoroastrianism; Christian ity; Hebrew, the Jewish faith; and Hindu or Moslem, whatever is decided upon. But they should finance their own religion just like the Hebrews have 334 -

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 done in the past and just like the Catholics have done in the past. Let everyone, because if they don't do it themselves, they are not going to thank you for it anyway. So, therefore, I think you only get something if you struggle for it and therefore we should have our Chr istianity, we founded it. We should have our English-speaking schools. I would love to learn French, too, but I couldn't do it, there were no French teachers. Fina nce our own philosophy of life or religion just like the Catholic schools and the Hebrew ones today have been doing so long and are still doing. (

b) Proposal that all Ju deo-C hristia n whose forefathers founded Canada develop a matu re knowledge ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. My apologies to Mrs. Asseltine, because of the time element, have you much more to go, Mrs. Asseltine? MRS. ASSEL TINE: Well . . . A MEMBER: Maybe she could continue at the end of the ... MRS. ASSEL TINE: Yes, that would be be tter, thanks. MR. EINARSON: We were trying at the earlier stages to be fair to everybody that's still left here. MRS. ASSEL TINE: Yes, that's good. MR. EINARSON: I just wanted, Mr. Chairman, if that's agreeable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Einarson. If there is some time left, Mrs. Asseltine, you may finish your brief. Are Mr. Anderson and Mr. Roger Barsy here? Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: Before Mrs. Asseltine started she said that she would be very willing to give her brief and have it printed in Hansard, so if we could do this, we could check up on the rest of her brief and that would leave her free to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would do that Mrs. Assltine, if you would give the rest of your brief to the Clerk, we will make sure that it's printed in Hansard and whole brief will be recorded. MRS.

ASSEL TINE: Thank you. (Remainder of Mrs. Asseltine's brief) . . . conscience and religion likewise so they can follow the Pope's, Paul 11, teachings: 1. Respect for all life, the divine miracle where God's babies have a right to be born. 2. Born and not be aborted before birth in any stage after conception, unless the mother's very life is threatened. 3.

The right of every child to be born into a caring, loving, responsible family where God houses them and protects them and provides parents who will provide for child's physical, spiritual, emotional and mental fitness, moral fitness and community health and fitness, all round good health of the whole person. 4.

The right of children to be taught by loving parents how to live the life in No. (3), and that parents who God chose remain in the home and train their own children, especially in the first six and preferably 12 years of life, that all children may learn to look after themselves, to work, play, study, learn a trade or profession closest to their capabilities. Many mothers are leaving their babies to others to feed and train, and often to grow up like weeds.

If mothers, who are the only humans to bear a child and propagate on-going life, are not prepared to look after their offspring at least as caring and loving as a mother cat or dog, they should steri lize themselves because their hearts are not in this divine place of God to raise up a child in the way he or she sould go, so when he is old, he or she will not depart from it. All parents should be responsible for their own offspring and sacrifice and do her best with husband and God's help to raise her babies.

The babies did not ask to be born and parents should not expect taxpayers to feed their children in school and day care and educate them unless this service can be provided for all children, if parents wish it. Selfishness and greed should not be encouraged and this is what is happening today. God gave these children to families for only 18 years or so, a trust from God, so surely parents should do their beet to train a child from birth, through church, school, etc., until they can become responsible good citizens and not be a burden to the taxpayers. We live in Canada, not Russia or Israel.

Day care might be a necessity in those countries. 5. What Canada's parents, especially mothers, need is help in her home so she can become a voluntary Sunday School and community worker in her spare moments, when babies are older, and not go to work for a salary, often neglec ting her offspring. While babies are small, mothers should have hired help in her home to create a healthy atmosph ere all around and not be weary and overworked while husbands remain breadwinners and live according to means.

Status of Women should be to stay home and care for her offspring, home and community or else choose a career, marry or not marry as she chooses, but don't have children for which parents refuse to learn how to be responsible for. 6. Another proposal re Family Law should be reminded Canada is a country of Judeo-Christian heritage and Indian spirituality, and the marriage vows are "for better or for worse until death do us part". Divorce only complicates life and women should never marry a man if they refuse to work at their marriage, likewise men, to keep it healthy.

There should be pre-training for marriage and health. 7. Regarding patriation of the Constitution. Not yet. Wait until Premiers agree and Government of Canada agrees with Premiers. 8. Powers affecting the economy of Canada .­ Proposal or Suggestion. Salaries must be regulated according to costs to train, apprentic es hip, workmanship, dedication.

There is no justice at all when a talented hard-working art degree university student on the Dean's honour list after four years of university education has to accept minimum wages, and another with a few weeks learning apprenticeship receives 8.00 an hour in a Safeway store. Why should a medical doctor after years of 335

Tuesday, 9 December, 1980 study and dedication, first to the public and updated learning with long hours of work, receive no more salary than a plumber? What affects the economy is lack of hard-working, dedicated, kn owledgeable, honest and upright citizens who care for jobs and good workmanship rather than unions, strikes, higher wages, etc., especially leaders of Canada, politicians and city councillors who set their own wages setting the ball rolling so all others have to follow. A nation is only as good as its people. Leaders should provide personal leadership. 9. Com munications including broadcasting.

Stop discouraging personal letter writing, the best and oldest form of commun ication next to personal commu nication. Stop raising postage. We live in Canada, not Europe. Get back to sense and unity in communications and stop all this pornography in films on TV, all this liquor showing and smoking on films. Stop catering to specific poor ideals, for example, attitude to alcohol, drugs, etc., on TV and radios, and encourage honest, truthful news in newspapers and journalism and news medias. Choo se more realistic cartoons, not all this violence and poor identi ty forms.

For example, don't glamorize the victims of drug addictions, pill popping, promiscuous alcohol's identity with our beautiful Canada. For example, portray respect, dignity toward good work habits, love of one's job, love of cleaning home and good hous ekeeping and respect for responsibility and self-sufficiency, honesty, integrity and a good religious healthy life and habits. Truthful, updated, unb iased news should be on news media, and character building content, good music, songs, etc. 10.

Parliame ntary de mocratic methods of government sti ll are the fairest method of government and freedom, providing all Canadians kno w what and who they are voting for. Mo re education would help in view of the hodge-podge of different immigrants from all over the world who know very little about Canada and its true history, not forgetting the Indians and Eskimos. 11 . Language Rights. I have never had the chance to learn the language of my birth. I wish I knew it, but immi grants can't be choosers because immigrants are grateful to come to Canada to work and earn a living.

I had a choice of learning French or Latin as my second language after 1928 when my parents came to Canada with six children, youngest, one-and-h alf-year old twins, I was eight. I wish teachers had come to teach us French in school because I never could talk it after four years of French grammar. I wish more time could be devoted to better English and more interesting vocabulary in English. I would have preferred to learn my native tongue, but this would be impossible if government would have to provide teaching of all languages, religions and cultures.

Therefore, those who want to promote their own language, culture and religion should pay for it themselves, like the Jews and Catholics. French should be allowed where numbers warrant, but no way any language by tax money except English for all because, after all, at the time of 17 63 when the French fell to the English Quebec, Ontario and N.S. and N.B. were the only provinces by 18 67, there was no west. So why force French on the west unless numbers warrant? This does not mean French should not be encouraged because the one language, English, is not very much.

I wish I could speak French but if I had my own choice, I prefer the study of Latin and good English and my native tongue which is neither French or English. Canadian Heritage and Tradition restored.

In the Charter of Rights I would propose: 1) Restore "Dominion" of Canada, Psalm 72. 2) Restore our old flag, the ensign with all its tradition and history in it. 3) Add to above flag a symbol representing Indian and Eskimo as founding race. 4) All people of Judeo­ Christian heritage study and follow it in everyday life, then no problem with moral and spiritual decay, then physical, mental health and community health would become a reality. 5) Restore our Canadian traditional weights and measures system and throw out the metric. We learned the Canadian system, why throw out more of my Canadian identity?

I don't like it. Who is responsible for eroding and removing what I learned in my school days? Un-learning and forcing me to think metric and Celsius is wrong and unjust. 6) Who forced "Celsius" scale on us? What was wrong with Fahrenheit? I would like my Canadian heritage and traditional teachings of my school days restored. 7) I would prefer my old flag, the Canadian Ensign, restored. lt was my Canadian heritage my brothers and thousand of others fought for. (See No. (1) .

I prefer my Judeo-Christian heritage and tradition restored by returning "Dominion" from Psalms 72. 9) I believe that mothers, all females should be grateful for their divine role, their unique role of childbearing and accept this divine role as mother as God gave them. I need not tell you men cant bear babies, only women. 10 ) I believe that all life is sacred and should never be mur dered.

After conception there is potential for a life. 11 ) I believe mothers must accept role as gua rdian along with father, for full responsibility of caring for their children and not shirk this divine duty to God , the unborn baby from conception is what life is all about. Mothers should never abort or murder and choose rather to get sterilized than bring an innocent child into a cold un loving atmosphere where mothers refuse to sacrifice. The child never asked to be born. Therefore train all parents to become mature, loving care, unselfish God fe