LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Warren Steen (Crescentwood). MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee come to order. Just before we get back to the Catholic Women's League of Canada, where they left off their brief at Page 10, Family Life, it's very obvious to all members of the committee and the public that we are not going to get through today hearing all those who wish to make representation here in the City of Winnipeg.

So the commi ttee will sit on Mo nday and Tuesday, December 8th and 9th, the regular hours 10:00 a.m. to 12 :30; 2:00 to 5:00, on those two days, to hear remai ning present ations from tho se who wish to make presentations here at the City of Winnipeg. So any mem ber who is further down on the list and doesn't feel that they will be heard today, we will announce as of now, officially, that we will have to sit again for th ose two days, the 8th and 9th of December, a Monday and a Tuesday, the reg ular hours that we have been sitting. Mr. Parasiuk, on that subject? MR. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Yes.

I would suggest that on one of those two days that the committee meet from 2:00 to 10:00, say Monday from 2:00 to 10:00, to enable people, who would like to make presentations but possibly can't because they are working, to make their presentations. Some people could take a day off work but they might not even get on anyway and that's one of the difficulties that people might ha ve.

I don't kn ow if the committee should try and meet for 12 hours because you can't really absorb that much after that, but I think that if we started sitting from 2:00 to 5:00 for example and then from 7:00 to 10:00, that would be sufficient. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, can we sort of hear from other members of the committee? MR. LAURENT L. DES JARDINS (St. Boniface): Could we leave that flexible at this time? Definitely the first day the ordina ry hours and let's see what is left then and if we have to accommodate people who can't make it, well then we will go ahead. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I can guarantee you that on the 9th you will not ha ve any mem bers of the government side there for an evening time because they have other obligations that night. MR. DESJARDINS: Then it would be an orderly meeting. We could go ahead. MR. CHAIR MAN: You mi ght have an orderly meeting but we would not . Mr. Einarson. 97 MR. HENRY J. EI NARSON (R ock Lake): Mr . Chairman, if I might make a sugges tion.

A decision, I think, has been made; that is, a suggestion has been made, maybe I should put it that way, that we meet from 10:00 till 12 :30 on the 8th and 2:00 to 5:00 o'clock on the 8th in the afternoon, also the same hours on the 9th. That's the unde rstanding I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that was my suggest ion. MR. EINARSON: Yes. I think that that sufficed. We have now started that pattern and it seems to me that the public are accepting that.

I have heard no comments contrary to the hours that we have and I think that we should carry on in the same fashion on December 8th and 9th as we are doing yesterday and today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Westbury. MRS. JUNE WESTBURV (Fort Rouge): A contrary comment has already been heard and I would like to offer another thought. You, Mr. Chairperson, have indi cated that nobody on the government side is available on the evening of the 9th, a Tuesday, so what are we going to do for those people who haven't had time to make their presentat ions by 5:00 o'clock on that day? The House is sitting on the 11 th and ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: We may have to sit in the month of January. Even though represen tations may be made to them, the committee will have to meet again after the 9th to consider a report. MRS. WESTBU RV: We ll, of cour se, Mr . Chairperson. So that means you are going to ask people to sit here for another two days in the second week in ·Dec emb er, and this commi ttee is not prepared to put itself out to make sure that they are heard in those two days, and that is what astonishes me. I feel that the suggestion made by the Member for Transcona, Mr.

Parasiuk, is a reasonable one, in view of the fact that the govern ment members cannot or will not be available on the Tuesday evening. A CITIZEN: Could I ask a question? What number do you expect to get to today? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, if you can tell me how long each person will be, then I can tell you where we'll get to. I have no idea. I would hope we would hear three or four more this afternoon. A CITIZEN: You don't know what number you left off at? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we don't go by numbers.

I can tell you we will start again by letting the Catholic Women's League complete their presentat ion; then we will go to Mr. Forest; then Mrs. Friesen; and there are two representatives from out of town from the

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 Women's Institute, that have asked if they could be given consideration that their brief can be heard today. They have driven in from out of town, and that's been the normal practice of this committee, is to give out-of-towners preferential treatment. Then alter that there's a Dennis Cyr, Professor Gordon Rothney, Charles Lamont and Bernice Sister. Those are the names that are in the list. A CITIZEN: Mr. Chairman, I understand from the desk that the Ukrainian Canadian Committee was listed next alter Mr. Forest. That's so listed on the desk. MR.

CHAIR MAN: Well, the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, according to the list that I'm working off, is about twelve names down, and what you 're read ing from is the original list. We didn't conclude yesterday's list, so they were backed up to today, and they were given preferential treatment over the list of people that asked for the Tuesday hearing. A CITIZEN: Well, I suppose I should be going home. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say, sir, that it's very doubtful we'll get to you. A CITIZEN: Could you repeat the hours then that you're ... ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we haven't decided yet. MRS.

WESTBURY: We're still trying to decide. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I think you should read the complete list to give an idea to the people where they're at, because I think they might be getting the wrong information. lt might be that they feel they should go home and come back the next day, instead of waiting for two days. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hyde. MR. LLOYD G. HYDE (Portage la Prairie): I wonder if it wouldn't be well for the convenience of the people who are waiting that they be numbered, then they can't be shuffled around. We got ourselves in a bit of a mess this morning and I hope we can correct that. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Let's decide on the hours for the 8th and 9th. What is the will of the committee for operating hours on the 8th and 9th? Mr. Mercier, have you a sugges tion? HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, the list that was given to us toda y ind icates only thr ee people cannot attend until after 4:00, so I would suggest we maintain the 10 :00 o'clock till 12 :30 and 2:00 till 5:00. I am prepared to extend that even till 6:00 o'clock on the Monday to make sure these people have a chance to make their presenta tion, and leave it flexible and open.

If we have to sit in the evening , I think that the Monday night is the only night, members of the government side are obligated on the Tuesday night. I'd be prepared to suggest we leave it flexible. 98 MR. CHAIRMAN: So the hours on the 8th and 9th will be the regular sitting hours and the committee will . MR. VIC SCHROEDER (ROSSMERE): Mr . Chairman, I'v e had my hand up here for quite some time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Schroeder. MR.

SCHROEDER: Thank you. 1t would seem to me that it would be logical, if we are going to talk at all about an evening meeting on that Monday, to decide right now to have it and that way we will have the morning off. We will start at 2 o'clock, go to 6:00, and start again at 7:00, and we could get about seven hours of hearings in on that day. As well, I think we could have an extra hour today and go to 6 o'clock so that we can get some of these people through.

They have been waiting here for some time. 1t doesn't seem to me to be logical to say we'll start at 10 o'clock in the morning on the 8th and then have you people say at 5 o'clock, well, we're tired, we want to go home. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. lt's obvious that there is a dis agreement as to sitting hours. Would some member of the committee be prepared to put a motion as to the sitting hours on those two days? Mr. Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that on the - is it the 5th, the Monday? MR. CHAIRMAN: Monday, the 8th. MR.

DESJARDINS: . . . that we meet from 2:00 to 5:00 and from 7:00 to 10:00, and on the second day that we meet the same hours as we are meeting now. If there is more people that want to come in, we'll have to meet after the session, some time in January. MR. CHAIR MAN: Is Mr. Des jardins' motion understood by all? All in favour, please ind icate by showing your hand. Motion is carried. So the hours will be 2:00 to 5:00 and 7:00 to 10:00 on the Monday; on the Tuesday, they shall be 10 :00 to 12 :30 and 2:00 till 5:00. Mr . Parasi uk. MR. PARASIUK: Yes.

I have a copy of a petition that was sent to the Attorney-General from a number of people, I think some 30 people from Dauphin, Manitoba, who ha ve said that: "We, the undersigned, strongly request that a public hearing be held in Dauphin to serve the Dauphin residents and the neighbouring communities." Originally we had thought that Winnipeg, Brandon, Swan River and Thompson would sort of cover the area, but we did say that if there were people from a particular community who were sending in sufficient requests for us to hear them that we would consider meeting specifically in that community.

That's what we had talked about and I thought agreed to when we first met, I guess, a couple of weeks ago when we had the organizational meeting of this committee. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General has any response - - -

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 that he would make to that petition that he has received regard ing this matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, as you know, I gave you a copy of that petition this morning at 10 o'clock to raise with the comm ittee. I think before we decided on that we'd have to know from the Clerk's Office what number, if any, notices have been given of people who wish to make representations in Brandon and Swan River.

If it's possible, we might on the way from Brandon to Swan River meet in Dauphin for an afternoon or 12 :00 to 2:00 or 12: 00 to 3:00, something like that. it would be fine with me. MR. PARASIUK: The reason why I raised it is that this will be our last opportunity to discuss this before we meet in Brandon next Monday, so I thought we should just try and clear this up before we get into hearing submissions. MR. CH AIRMAN: For the in formation of the committee, the Clerk informs me that there are thr ee or four persons that have ind icated a desire to meet with the committee in Brandon.

His office has heard from no one in regard to Swan River and no one in regard to Thompson, as of today. MR. PARASIUK: Anyone from Dauphin? MR. CHAIRMAN: We have heard from no one in Dauphin. The only thing we've heard from in Dauphin is the petition. MR. CLERK: We never advertised in Dauphin. MR. CH AIRMAN: And we didn't advertis e for Dauphin. Mr. Parasiuk. MR. PARASIUK: Well, in this respect I don't know who sent the petition. I called up someone in that area, a Mr. Ficzycz -(I nterje ction)- Pardon, was he the person?

Well, I phoned him up at noon just before we got in here, and he said that he knew that there were at least thr ee or four presentations being dev eloped, possi bly more, from gr oups like the Chamber of Commerce and indi vidual groups, who would be present ing in Dauphin if it was stopping in Dauphin, but they felt that it wouldn't be stopping in Dauphin. I got the impression from him that they would come forward if we made provisions to stop in Dauphin.

Given the fact that this is a petition of some number of people, and given the fact that he is saying that groups are indeed prepared to make presenta tion, and possibly may not be able to go up to Swan River or to Brandon, then I would sugge st that maybe we try and have an afternoon in Dauphin, possibly on the 25th. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that it's impossible to have a meeting between Brandon and Swan River and Dauphin. The Clerk has to advertise it and he's got less than a week to do it.

If a meeting must be held in Dauphin, I'm afraid it's going to have to be held after the 8th and 9th of December. 99 MR. DESJARDINS: Mr . Chairman, did I hear correctly that there's nobody so far in Swan River? MR. CHAIRMAN: Nobody has ind icated so far. MR. DESJARDINS: Well, are we definitely going there anyway? MR. CHAIRMAN: it was advertised. MR. DESJARDINS: Well, I kn ow, but if there's nobody there it's kind of ridiculous to go there. MR. CHAIRMAN: There could be persons that show up at th e meeting without informing the Clerk's office. MR. DESJARDINS: Oh, I see, they are not required to let you know. MR.

CHAIRMAN: All right, to give an ind ication of . . . The advertisement the Clerk has just shown me says "may register". The gentleman back th ere, yes, ha ve you a comment? MR. DENNIS CYR: My name is Mr . Cyr and according to you last night before we left, I was to speak after the Catholic Women's League. Now, this morning, I'm willing to step aside and let Mr . Forest . . . Mrs. Friesen is scheduled to speak after Mr. Forest ... MR. CHAIRMAN: She was on the list yesterday, and called in and said that she couldn't. MR. CYR: I would still like to speak. This is my second day off work. MR.

CH AIRMAN: And then we also ha ve the Women's Institute, I think they're present. Okay, let's carry on with the Catholic Women's League, please. We've used up 24 minutes already of the afternoon. MRS. BERNADE TTE RUSSELL: Yes, can appreciate the fact too of an evening session. it's costing me yesterday afternoon's wages and all day today's wages to appear before you here, and I appreciate the fact that someone has decided to hold an evening session.

We will go on, and once again I'll note that our recommendations are found at the beginning, and we have gone through the first three and we will go on with Family Life, Page 10. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: The Catholic Church has always given marriage and the in stitution of the family a place of honour, both in its teaching and its pastoral work and indeed right at this moment we have just seen that the bishops of the world have met at the Vatican to pursue the concerns for family. I will be giving, for your information, a newspaper

article which tells us that the Bishop Synod will be asking the United Nations to formulate a brief of human rights for families as they . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake on a point of privilege.

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 MR. DAVID BLAKE (Minn edosa): The submissions are missing pages 10 to 14. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: I'm sorry about that. MR. BLAKE: We'll just listen very carefully. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Slake, you just listen very carefully then. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: We did that late at night. What I was saying then was not all in the subm ission anyways, but it is a newspaper

article which will tell you the draft of a recommended human rights for families. that the Synod of Bishops have decided that th ey will consult with the U.N. and other organizations, that have a like interest, that the United Nations would come up with rights of families. We would challenge you here to consider if that isn't also possible within our constitution, because the family is the basic unit of human ity and foremost of the elements that make up our society. The family is defined as th e place where all hu manity is kni t together and assured a future. it is part of th e natural order willed by God.

In the family, human rights are of equal importance to every pers on. Expr essed in a cons t itutional document th ey would be both a statement of common pu rp ose for, and a limi tation on all governments within Canada. No fundamental value should be denied or be permitted to be denied to any Canadian. This includes Canadians of all ages, and particularly the young, the aged, the helpless and the disabled.

Security for the elderly, assistance to the disabled and protect ion for the help less from physical or psychological abuse are also priority concerns with our organization which believes that ". . . any form of violence inflicted on a person, but particularly on the defenceless, is deplorable and in family situations has a traumatic effect which should be a special concern to every Canadian. " We know that a strong family life can prevent some of the problems from arising and can deal effe ct ively with some when the y ha ve arisen.

However, it is imperative that these protections be embodied in a Canadian Constitution, and we recognize that unfortunately there is no statute that can preserve the life of a family that is faced with unbearable crises and the breakdown of a family presents a personal tragedy to many numbers of Canadians. The results have been very widespread and affect all strata of society, the schools and the courts, etc. We know that separated parents are trying to cope alone and they face many obstacles apart from loneliness and the difficulties of dealing singly with the problems of growing children.

The problems of obtaining support payments, when the supporting parent moves from the province, have highlig hted the need for certain aspects of family matters to be hand led nationally as well as provincially. Inter­ provincial court orders require federal authority to operate effectively and we have suggested provisions for this to be included in the Constitution. The BNA Act,

Section 91 (26) has established that marriage and divorce are matters under federal jurisdiction. We believe that just as Canada has a single uniform criminal code, so it should continue to have a single divorce law. lt is in the interest of all Canadians, especially those whose marri ages have broken down, that such ju risdiction remain unchanged.

Further, the CWL seeks inclusion in a Constitution of provision for the protection of citizens affected by divorce from the action of one parent who removes from a province children lawfully in the custody of the other parent 'or a third party, and from the problems which result from a spouse who fails to pay lawful support and who moves from province to province. In the original United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, the

preamble states "Whereas the child by reason of his physical and mental im maturi ty needs special safeg uards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth ... ". Principle four of the same document states "The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in healt h; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care.

" The CWL reiterates its support then for guarant ees for the protection of children before and after birth and urges the Go vernment of Canada in its considerations of The BNA Act to be vigilant in recog nizing the need for legal protection of the unborn and the value of human life until the time of natural death. We are also concerned about the recent and continued advances being made in genetics because it raises the spectre of potential misuse of science.

So regarding human experimentation we need to id ent ify basic eth ical pri ncip les and develop appropriate guidelines for continued research, while at the same time protecting basic human rights. The CWL believes this to be a serious matter which needs firm action by the Government of Canada and the provincial governments, and we would ask you to take note that we do have a very extensive brief prepared on genetic engineering for anyone who is particularly inte rested in that document. MRS.

RUSSELL: Recognition of women as equal citi zens: The Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of a human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions.

The Catholic Women's League of Canada strongly urges that this recognition of the dignity and worth of the human person be included in a new Constitution with particular recog nition of women. lt is only in the last 50 years in Canada that women were gr anted the status of persons, yet apparently there are many still in society who have not accepted this verdict and who do not deal decisively with the reality.

As women, we are determined to guard jealously the decision of the Privy Council in England which overruled the Supreme Court of Canada, making the proposition that women are fully persons a part of the constitutional law of this country. Discrimination based on sex must be avoided by both the careful use of language in the laws of our country and the positive proof of affirmative action on the part of governments. This will ensure and 100 - -

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 demonst rate to our nation a willing ness to give reality to the concept of women as fully human persons and would encourage their participation in the life of the country.

The appointment of women to high political positions, the encouragement of women to run for office, the ena ctment and stric t enforcement of anti-discrimina tory laws in the labour force, the avai labili ty of equal opportunity in employment are all ways in which government can and should lead the way. it is deemed timely to urge that the us e of language referring to both men and women state specifically, in reference to persons, persons of both sexes and to state "he" or "she" where required, rather than as in The BNA Act of today and current documents where the references are to "he" and "him".

The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada made its report to the government on Septembe r 28, 19 70. While many of the recommendations have been implemented, we would remind the government that there are still many more to be im plement ed which will benefit all Canadians. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Native Rights: A guarantee of human rights embodied in a written document, one which is difficult to alter, would represent a commitment to all Canadians.

Whatever their origins or regions, whatever their training or skills, all Canadians should be assured of the opportunity to obtain the education they desire, to practice the re ligion they prefer, to speak the langua ge they choose, to pursue the occupations they wish, where they wish, to receive equal treatment at all stages in their lives from their fellow citizens and particularly from their governments.

The CWL has expressed on several occasions its concern for the native peoples of Canada and believes that the native peoples are striving to have injustices corrected, to re-establish for th emselves some measure of self-sufficiency, healt h, dig nity, personal worth and independence. In a statement on Human Rights, we made reference to our efforts di rected to the achievement of an improvement in the lives of the native peoples and our commitment to urge the government to such impr ovements.

We urge that with due consultation with representatives of the native people concerned, that positive provisions for the preservation of the rights of nativ e people s of Canada and for equa l opportunities for them. We would like to make mention he re of an opportunity we had of hearing the then Mi nister of Indi an Affairs, Warren Allmand, in 19 77 when he addressed our convention. He expressed the need for national reconciliation in these words which are still applicable to the situation of our native peoples at this time.

He said, "R econciliation is needed not only between native Canadians and othe rs or between English and Fr ench, but also between immigr ants and native born, urban and rural, rich and poor." His challenge to the listeners was that they be in the forefront of this reconciliation and he suggested the process be carried out wherever there is division or misundersta nding. We have urged the government of Canada and want you to know that in its discussion of the BNA Act we wish them to act upon our recommendations and ensure th at Ind ian women who marry non­ lndians can regain and retain their Indian status.

We believe this to be a woman's right. We ask our own provincial government to support us in this. This right of a particular minority group has also been the subject of representation by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and we support the Council's view in this matter. We want you to know that we have also referred to the 1970 recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women regarding Esk imo and Indian women and have urged the government in Canada to include the recognition of the distinc tive cult ur es of the nat ive peoples in the rewritten Constitution and Bill of Rights.

MRS. RUSSEL L: Environment and Resources: The dimensions of Canada are vast but its geography is such that only a small proportion of its land can be devoted to the production of food and agricultural products. Thus the preservation and development of forests, of arable land, the resources of the sea, animal and bird life, are seen to be matters of national concern. Present pr ovincial laws are inadequate to the task of protecting this heritage. For example, new urban areas continue to use up rich produc ti ve land rather than unpr od uct ive acreage.

Many voices now warn that mankind has reached a turning point in hi story. Critical decisions must be made now to stop plundering the earths non­ renewable resour ces before it is too late. Yet this ind ustrial ized society tr eats the resources of the earth as if they were limitless.

Those preparing the original British North America Act in 18 67 could not have foreseen the awesome results of increasing ind ustrialization, but in 19 80 there is the opportunity in the repatriation of the Constitution to write in guarantees for the protection of the natural resources of our country for future generations and the CWL would urge that this be done.

In the concern for such protect ion, consideration should be given to such areas as: preservat ion of arable land; utili zation of the sea's vast wealth in protein and minerals; controls to protect the ozone layer; intelli gent conservation of the forests and prevention of water pollution; the misuse of nuclear energy and the que stionable methods of waste di sposal and; mor e study of econ omical and renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind and hydro. MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: The last topic we wish to add ress is Responsibility to Developing Countries, because we believe that an attitude at the provincial level is essential in order for our federal government to function in a certain way. Since a country is no more an island than is any person, Canada must so order its affairs that it functions as a responsible member of the larger community - the international community, and the CWL is aware of strong obligations in this regard.

Barbara Ward Ja ckson in her book "World Development" said, "Since this vast wealth is rooted in the new technologies, it flows only to those who have the capital and the education to deploy and use 101

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 the new techniques. Two-thirds of humanity, living in the excolonial lands of Latin America, Africa and Asia, are only just be gin ning to cross the new scientific threshold of abunda nce.

For the time being therefore, the gap between the already wealthy Atlantic nations and the rest of mankind is very wide and can become even wider." Canada has been a participant in the deliberations of world bodies, such as the United Nations, and has been a contributor of citizens time and taxpayers monies in rendering assistance to those countries whose development has not reached the same stage as that of Canada. However, Canada's aid still falls short of the goal of 0.7 percent of the gross national product recommended in the Pearson Report.

We believe that a Constitution for Canada which would include prov 1s1ons dealing with the responsibility of Canada and of Canadians to the world community must ensure the continuation of efforts and of support for efforts to achie ve not only world peace and ha rmony but the ind ividual fulfillment of other peoples whose current situation does not afford that opportunity. We'll leave the rest for you to read, there are little bits there that we feel you will be able to accomplish, in respect for the others who still. wish to present. MRS.

RUSSELL: In conclusion: A Constitution is much more than an abstract document. lt is the fundamental law of a countr y; and, as such , it ensures the establishment and maintenance of a legal order whose objective must be to protect the rights and promote the well-being of its citizens.

The Catholic Wom en's League of Canada is mindful of the complexities of the problems facing the governments in preparing a Constitution for Canada and expresses its earnest hope that the currect deliberations prove fruitful for each individual Canadian. lt is the responsibility of all citizens of good will to work together for the common good. The Catholic Women 's League of Canada welcome s the opportunity to present the opinions of its members and dedicates itself to continue to contribute to the un ders tanding and gro wth of religious fre edom, racial justice, peace and ha rmony for Go d and Canada. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ladies. Will you ladies permit questions from members of the committee? MRS. WRYRZYKOWSKI: Yes, we will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any members of the committee who wish to question either of the two lad ies repres enting the Catholic Leag ue? Mr s. West bury. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr. Chairperson, first of all, I would like to congratulate them on the quality of the brief.

I think it was very well done, very well presented, but anyway, I just wondered if you, too, would comment on the statement that these rights, and presumably all the rights to which you have referred, are best protected by the Leg islature, rather than having the final decision with the Supreme Court. Would you make a comment on that statement that has been made, not by me? MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: In preparing the brief we recognized that we did not state per se that there ought to be a huma n right s statement, but we rec ognize that th ere ha s to be huma n rights recognized in a Constitution, and that because we did not discuss the absolute topic per se with our members, to say, do you believe as a group of members that a human rights statement should be a part of the constitution, we did not discuss that, we did not take a vote on that so we cannot speak for them. But wha t we could say were th e many concerns that the League has voted on over the years, which do speak of human rights.

Does that answer your question? MRS. WESTBURY: Not quite, but almost. MR. CHAIRM AN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: Could I pursue this to make sure that I understand. I think that you're saying, you're trying to give us a message of the rights that you figure are fundamental, and you are not saying at this time, you are not taking sides, should it be enshringed in a Bill of Rights or should it be left to the Legislature. Is that a fair assessment or are you saying 'no' there shouldn't be a Bill of Rights? MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: We are not saying, no, there shouldn't be a Bill of Rights. MR. DESJARDINS: You're not taking a side on that as long as a way is found to protect those rights. Right? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: That's right. MR. DESJARDINS: That's fair. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: That's correct. MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Eina rs on. Oh sorry, Mr . Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: I have a concern. I agree with most of this brief, but I have a concern.

You want to make sur e that the women are rec ogniz ed as persons, and I don't think that you 'll find an argument here today; but are you going in the right way if you start stipulating that a certain number of women justices should be added. In other words, it could be a token repres entation. I would think that you have enough confidence, and it might take a while, mind you, but you might ha ve enoug h confidence that if they're treated and looked at as persons, that is the only thing that we want. I'm a little afraid if you say that and then later on you say, encou raged to run for office by government.

Government don't encourage, it's people, and I would think that, by experience I can say that all politi cal parties are looking all over to try and interest women in running; even if it isn't for no other reason but for good poli tics. So I'm a little concerned. I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I wouldn't want to see that there should be certain justices, a woman justice should be added. I think they should be as women. If you start that I 102 I I •

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 think you're going to go against what you'r e trying to do. MRS. RUSSELL: If I may answer that question. I had trouble with that when I was putting thought into the brief, and because it has always been my belief that that would be tokenism, but I'v e come to the conclusion that if that's where we have to start, we have to start. We haven't been able to get it any other way. Maybe this is the way we'll get them in. 1t just hasn't happened and, you know, I think that we have to spell it out now, because it just hasn't come about.

We've waited and we're being patient and we're not getting the appointments to the high office; we're not getting the kinds of jobs that some of us want, and so it has to come another way. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Even the fact, further, of the recog nition of women, we noticed that at the Premier's meeting there were no women around the table. We noticed, and thank goodness that Mrs.

Westbury was able to come and join you, that there wasn't a woman here, and we recognize that that is the women who haven't made it, so to speak, in the politi cal field, and we'r e striving and preparing ourselves, but we need more encouragement. MR. DESJARDINS: I'm not fully satisfied, but I think I understand what you are saying. I think you agree with me that this is not the best way, but if it's the only way you are ready to start that way and . MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: it's a beginning. MR. DESJARDINS: . . . and later on we mi ght change it to make sure that there are some men in the justice office. MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: Oh, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the ladies present, on behalf of their organization, there's been much talk, and it seems to me that this is the crux of a good deal of our problem in regards to our Constitution, and I'm wondering if you've had this discussion within your group as to whether or not you feel that the Constitution should be patriated back to Canada, without any amending formula.

In other words, what I'm saying, do you think that the British Parliament, which I think, as I understand, the Prime Mi ni ster wants to see happ en , that our Constitution be amended in Great Britain before it ever comes to this country? I wonder if you've had any discussion on that matter and how you people feel about that. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: I'm sorry, we have not.

We meet once a year at national and provincial conventions, and it's at that point that our consensus are taken, and that was not brought at that time. lt wasn't an evident concern, but we did pass the resolution that we should speak on the Constitution, but that particular item was not dealt with in a vote form, I'm sorry. MR. EI NARSON : Well then through you, Mr. Chairman, to the ladies.

Are you aware - and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, and we have the Attorney-General here - that all Premiers across Canada were in full agreement with the Prime Mini ster that the Constitution be patriated from Gr eat Britain to Canada. Is that your understanding of this whole matter of debate that we're going through? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. EINARSON: That's why I posed the question previously, and if you are aware of that, I just wondered as to how you feel. To me, this is an important matter that we must consider. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Yes. Unfortunately, we can't speak for all the women. MR.

EI NARSON : Very good . Thank you Mr s. Wyrzykowski. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier: MR. MERCIER: In your

section on Family Law, you talk about a number of matters. Are you familiar with the position that Manitoba took on Family Law at the First Min isters' Meeting on the Constitition? MRS WYRZ YKOWSKI: Very much so. Yes , I listened to that. MR. MERCIER: Is there any area of that that you dis agree with? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: The whole of it. it would be difficult to say at this point. MR. MERCIER: In preparing your subm ission, did you consider the detail of the Federal Constitutional Proposal? Because in your submission, you make reference to the legal protection of the unborn. We had a Dr. Doyle here yesterday, who made a comment on

Section 7, "Everyone has a Right to Life", and it was his view that there should be some improvements in that section, in his opinion. Are you making any specific recommendation on the specific federal proposal. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: When we drafted this, the document that is now the resolution document was not out at the time when we began to prepare, so ther efore if it does not seem to relate to the final wording of the resolution , it's because we were working with the previous document. The concern that we made regard ing the rights of children, and so on, it's not spelled out. MR.

MERCIER: So that would be covered then, I think it's on Page 9 of your brief at the last sentenc e, after refer ring to the right to life, you indi cate the way the Constitution reads now, it seems to us too much is being left to be resolved in the courts. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Yes, and that's not only in terms of the unborn, as much as it is the fact that the statement could include that children have the right to vote. it could be presumed that, the way it's worded, and that there are not specific rights for children; for example, the right to belong to a family, 103

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 or to be prote cted, that the family would be pro tected for the right of the child. The y say everyone, every person, every citizen, and some of those are not truly rights of children, and others are missing for children. MR. MERCIER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further qu es tions? Mr. Walding. MR. D. JAMES WALDING (St. Vital): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a question on Native rights as it appears on Page 15.

I'm not sure from the text there whether you are suggesting that all Canadians should be treated equally or whether there should be certain additional rights for one particular ethnic group. MRS. WYRZYK OWSKI: In the case of na tive people. MRS. RUSSELL: In the case of native people, if they are consulted, then I think that maybe there are specific rights that need to be put in there for native people. lt may not apply to all of us, to all the rest. MR.

WALDING: I read in other parts of your brief and from other people that have appeared us that they very conscious, very concerned, about certain discrim inatory thin gs happening between different people in this country. They say, are we Canadians and should n' t everybody be treated equally and subje ct to certain safeguards. Are you then saying that is not so and that your organization would support additional rights for one particular group that others do not enjoy? MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: I would say that our council would agree that at this point in time the native people, specifically, ought to be able to verbalize for the mselves the ways in which they believe that they have not received justice in the past and that this is the point in time in which it should be, that they ought to be discrimin ated in that sense to their benefit. Other groups, we have not dealt with in that same way. Does that answer your question? MR. WALDING: I think it does and it then leads on to the next one which appears on the next page.

I understand it's now a right of native bands to have a certain amount of control over their band areas and that they do have the right to exclude certain persons from residing on that area. Now, is that a right that you would want them to continue to have? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Your observation is valid because on one hand we say they ought to make their decisions and on the other hand we dare to say that one of the decisions they themselves have made we do not find acceptable. We do that as women in concern for women. MR. WALDING: What about your concern for the rights of the native people? MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: I think, that even in terms of anyone else speaking to rights that are being unjust in other countries, we would want to speak about that. MR. WALDING: In order to satisfy this concern that you have about women, would it not be necessary to take away that right that the bands presently have, and that in order to benefit some people, you have to take or limit rights of other people. MRS. RUSSELL: I would probably say that, it's reasonable. MR. WALDING: Do you see that as being a political decision or some thing that a judge should make that decision? MRS. RUSSELL: I can 't respond to it.

I th ink probably consultation with them would be the best way to answer and try and get them to come up with an opinion that would be acceptable to them. MR. WALDING: Even if it didn't make this provision for women that you're concerned about. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: We would hope that even this provision about women would be presented to them as to be reviewed in terms of a more just situation among their people. MR. WALDING: If they considered it and said, no, we want to keep our rights. MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: Well, then we have to give up, but we still believe that it ought to be. it's really our statement of what we think is unjust there. MR. WALDING: Can I also ask you about family rights tha t you mention in here? it hasn't been brought up by anyone else appearing before the comm ittee. Could elab or ate on, perhaps, with specifics on what you are referring to there? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: We have a couple of them.

We believe that there are inefficencies that serve as a deterrent for families, especially to couples who are disadvantaged, but who with sufficient resou rces would have perhaps more children or would be able to live more comfortably if there were the necessary support systems available to them. Or that a revision in our tax structure should take place so that elderly people cared for by family members could be reasonably comp en sated for the added cost of caring for their family member.

Or, for example, the allocation of funds for program development and services, that they should be increased to voluntary social service agencies who can provide di rect services that reflect diverse values, traditions and needs of families in this pluralistic society. We also belie ve th at emp loyment policies and programs should not just be satisfied with helping individuals find jobs.

We think that families would benefit if employment policies should respect the nuclear and extended family needs of which employed indi viduals belong to and that forced mobility for employment reasons often creates more problems than it solves. These are the kinds of things that we think are really affecting and tearing families apart and causing the problems we are faced with. This is why I will have that distributed, that the bishops in the synod have 104 Ill

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 said, the kinds of things like the rights of a family to exist and progress as a family; that every person, especially of the poor, has a right to form a family and sustain it with appropriate helps; to believe and profess one's own faith and to propagate it; the right to educate one's children according to one's own traditio ns; the right to obtain ph ysical, social, political, economic security. These are the kinds of things that have been written now; that it is possible to work from some of these family rights and draft something. MR.

WALDING: I unde rstand a little better now what you are getting at. I'm just wondering, will it happen, if you get it written into a Constitution, because it seems that a number of the things there - care for the senior citizens, aid to childr en, employment support - these could be in large measure or in small measure. lt depends on the amount of dollars that are provided to get them . Do you see what I am getting? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Oh, yes. MRS. RUSSELL: Oh, yes. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: it's a valid question and, beli eve me, we'v e listened carefu lly and we'v e wondered and it's a big decision that has to be made.

We have to believe that the fact that it would be written down as a right, surely, isn't going to take away the right, isn't going to prevent the right from happening. I can't un derstand that because it's written as a right that it would lose something no matter where it's implemented. If it's implemented already without it being written but the fact that it's written, is that going to stop it from being a right? We've heard that the Ru ssians ha ve a very magnificent document of human rights and it doesn't ensure human rights in that country.

But does it stop, is it the cause of it not being carried out that it's written? I don't believe that. MRS. RUSSELL: I don't belie ve that either. I think it's, if you've got it written, at least you have a better chance of getting it, but at least you're not going to lose it. Nothing is going to be lost by having it written. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: And the fact that the United Nations have made a declaration of their rights of children, has that taken away rights from children or does it enhance the possibility of greater rights for children? MR.

WALDING: But do you see any danger that might be used as an excuse for not improving the present situation? For example, for children, that it might be argued, well, there is a children's allowance of whatever the amount is and that satisfied the Constitution and you will never get anything else because that's the way it is. it's written down and engra ved in stone, nonetheless. However, you might come back and argue, well, children deserve much more than this. MRS.

WYRZYK OWSKI: The rights ha ve to be spelled out more than that and then you have to come back to recognize what those further rights than just the monetary needs. MR. WALDING: I thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kovnats. MR. ABE KOVNATS (Radisson): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To follow up just a little bit on what Mr . Walding has been asking some questions on, and it's really, my position on this committee is to listen to the brie fs to help me formulate an idea as to whether I am in favour of entrenchment or not in favour of entrenchment. I would like to go women's rights.

When it comes to women's rights, I believe that they do have the same rights as any person. How would you, and I'm looking for some assistance here, how would you handle a situation when we are trying to support and encourage women's rights where there is a conflict with religious rights? Women who could be more active in church activities or synagogue activities - I'm not trying to differentiate - under what circums tances, if these rights were entrenched, would you allow women to be able to bear down that conflict between religious rights and civil rights, if it was entrenched in a Bill of Rights?

Am I getting across the type of question that I am tr ying to present to you? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Are you asking that in the event that rights for women might be spelled out in a Constitution that it might then enhance some rights that they don't already entertain in their religious circle? MR. KOVNATS: I guess that's what I'm asking. MRS.

WYRZYKOWSKI: We believe that the whole of women's rights are in a state of evolution and that we, the women, have to spell it out, recognize the call to become more fully person in all areas of our lives, that. seeing changes happening within our family relationship, in our church , in our society, wherever we are, we as women are being called to become more fully person and that the rights, if they were described in the Constitution would deal with our right in the government of the land, in the community, and in terms of the church we also make presentation for more recognition of us.

We have done that at the same time. MR. KOVNATS: Have you had any success in your presentations to the church? MRS. RUSSELL: I would say so. I would say that women in our particular churc h I can speak for have really gone a long way in the last few years and we're continuing to speak to them and, in fact, I saw someone laugh or I saw someone smile when they came to the part about the documents being changed to be "he " or "she", into that kind of language.

We, this year, have presented that kind of resolution to our bishops asking that in liturgy that terminology be change d to in clude all persons instead of just brother and brethren which we see so often in our liturgy. 105

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 MR. KOVNATS: Mr. Chairman, to the delegates, that pleases me. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you through, Mr. Kovnats? Mr. Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: I want to pursue something that was put in by Mr. Walding and I think I'm disappointed. I was disappointed by one of your answers, I think because I thought I understood, and I'm talking about the Native rights. You were saying that should be di scussed with the Natives of course. Then you were asked - ther e is some thin g apparently that the Natives have not seen fit to change and you're talking about the rights of the Indian women.

Your answer was, "As women were doing th at, but as a person or a Canadian or whatever, we'd have to desist." I'm disappointed in that if that is your idea. You have no hesitation to come in and say some of the things that were done for years that you think are wrong as women and it seems to me that fundamental rights, you know, I'm not trying to dictate to you, but I'm disappointed that you are not saying no, this should be changed, because it is not fair. lt is very unfair and I think you would get a lot of support.

Are you suggesting then because something was done, that it should go in the Constitution, maybe in the Bill of Rights the same way, when you know that somet hing is definitely wrong and it's not fair for women? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: I sensed that the question was whether it ought to go to a parliament ary situation or to a judicial. MR. DESJARDINS: Oh no, that's not, I'm talking about what you have on Page 16. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: But on that topic, that was what I understood the question to be, more dealing with that method of handling that concern which we have. MR.

DESJARDINS: No, I was getting ready to ask that question. Mr. Walding talked on it, then I tried to be careful. I thought you were asked, well, what do you do in this case. In effect you were more or less saying leave that to the Natives thems elves. But then Mr. Walding I thought asked you what in this case were you saying that you want to ensure that Indian women who marry non-lndians can regain or retain their Indian status.

I thought I heard you say, and I hope I'm wrong, that well, as women you still believe that, but you might have to desist because the precedent should be that they should determine for themselves. Am I wrong? MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: I'm really having difficulty. MR. DESJARDINS: What are you advocating? MRS. RUSSELL: We're advocating, and because it was a statement made by us and we end orsed it, it was made by the Advisory Council of Women and we would think and we would be sure that kind of input would be put in by the Native people and that they in fact want it. MR.

DESJARDINS: If they don't, what are you telling the Legislature? MRS. RUSSELL: I think I would be speaking for the CWL because we have a statement on Native rights, which we have made, and I would say that yes, we would be prepared to ask that it be included as it is here. MR. DESJARDINS: Oka y, disappointed. am no longer MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions to the two ladies? Seeing none, thank you very kindly. MRS. WYRZYKOWSKI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forest, we have finally got around to you, sir. Mr . Forest, I understand that you have a prepared text for members of the committee. MR.

GEORGES FORES T: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I'v e given them to the Clerk, Mr . Reeves. MR . CHAIR MAN: The text is in Engli sh understand. Is that true? MR. FOREST: That is right. MR. CHAIRM AN: And you will be speak ing in French? MR. FORES T: In French and English. MR. CHAIRMAN: To assist the translators, would you go reasonably slowly. I am told that you usually speak very quickl y. MR. FOREST: Qui, M. le president. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Clerk is out of the room at the moment. Can Mr. Forest start without the presentation in front of each member or do you want to wait?

Mr. Desjardins. MR. DESJARDINS: I wonder if it would be fair to ask Mr. Forest to tell us why the text was prepared only in English? I'v e got the answer already but I think it's important he tells the committee, because of the facilities that we have. MR. FOREST: it's as a result of a promise I made to this House in this building some time in June when I promised I would never again speak French in this building unl ess th ere was simul taneous translation. Therefore, I was not expecting to be heard in French. I wrote a letter, I admit it was late, on November 13th, and it reads as follows: To Mr.

Steen, copies to Mr. Steen, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Mercier, Mr . Pawley, Mr . Desjardins and Mr. Reeves: "L ast week I called the Clerk's Office to have my name recorded as one desirous of appearing before your committee. Since the subject matter of the deliberations is the Canadian Constitution, I stated that I believed it to be in order for simultaneous translation service to be in use at those meetings. 106 Ill

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 "M r. Reeves urged me to call you by dialing 489- 6777. I have not been able to reach you after several calls since last week. "Ma y I ur ge you to consider ha ving the simultaneous translation service at the constitutional reform meeting to show and respect the inherent nature of the Canadian Constitution. "I recognize that your decision on this question may be a difficult one. I sincerely hope that you can uphold the bilingual character of our nation without drawing out the uninformed radical element in our midst.

On the other hand I do not want to be told tha t for lack of a request for it, sim ultaneous translation was not available. "Ma y I suggest that on previous constitutional meetings here this year both of Canada's official languages were in use. Also, I am convinced that Ottawa's state secretariat would assist once more in rendering this essential service. "I n order that I may complete my text of my remarks to the committee, may I hear from you as soon as possible." lt was late in the evening of Friday night that my childr en br ought to my atten tion th e art icle appearing on Page 13 of the Free Press.

Mercier says, "P rovince unable to offer translation at hearings." I waited until Friday and over the weekend I prepared my text, five or six dr afts of it, until I finally settled on that and then I had the great news yesterday morning tha t translation would be available. I wish to at this time, Mr. Chairman, thank Mr. Mercier most sincerely for having taken this decision and you, the committee, who have I hear approved it yesterday morning, and I think that whilst it takes me by surprise . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: it's a pleasant surprise. MR. FOREST: Pardon? MR. CHAIRMAN: it's a pleasant surprise. MR.

FOREST: lt is a very pleasant surprise and I think it puts Manitoba, in my opinion, in the forefront of the deba tes in the Constitution that are going on insofar as what is Canada going to be tomorrow. We could, I know, speak day in and day out on all sorts of compromises, economics and everyt hing else, but if we cannot settle this, the major key of Canadian identity, I think we are wasting a lot of time.

M. le president, j' apparais devant vous aujourd 'hui comme temoin du grand besoin qu'il y a pour nous d' avoir au Manitoba une action gouvernementale beaucoup plus prononcee sur la restauration de la justice pour la minorite franc;:aise. Pour ceux d'e ntre vous qui etes contre l' enc hssement des dr oits humains, y inclus les droits linguis tiques, permettez­ moi de vous dire avec toute la force de mon etre, au tout debut de mes remarques, que je ne suis pas d'a ccord avec vous.

Comme je n'ai pas confiance entierement dans la resolution proposee puisqu'elle ne donne pas les garanties suffisant a l'enchssement des droits linguistiques. Je reviendrai tout a l'heure sur ce point. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: Mr. Chairman, I appear before you today to bear witness to the need for greater government action in restoring justice to Manitoba's French-speaking mi nority.

For you, who are against the entrenchment of human rights, including linguistic rights, may I state emphatically at the outset that I not only disagr ee with you, but I have not sufficient confidence in the resolution which is proposed, since it does not give sufficient guarantees to entrench minority language rights. I shall come back on this point later on. Sunday, November 16, the day before yesterday, a small group of Manitobans gathered at a graveside in the St. Bonif ace Cathedral Cemetery to commemorate the 95th Ann iversary of the untimely death of the father of Manitoba, Louis Riel.

Louis Riel foresaw his work, in part, that of fostering peace amongst religious and linquistic groups, based on solidarity and unity would take some time. At his trial Louis Riel had this to say: "If I have any influence in the new world it is to help in that way and even if it takes 200 years to become practical, then after my death that will bring out practical results, and then my children's children will shake hands with the Protestants of the new world in a friendly manner. I do not wish these evils which exist in Europe to be continued, as much as I can influence it, among the half-breeds.

I do not wish that to be repeated in America. That work is not the work of some days or years, it is the work of hundr eds of years." On that note, Mr. Chairman, permettez-moi de vous dire que c'est a cause de cette vision lointaine que je peux dire qu'il nous taut avoir de la perseverance. Le progres social ne vient qu'a vec la persev erance, !' edu cat ion, la tolerance et la comprehension. L'attitude des gens doit changer. Je crois qu'il est approprie pour moi, en ce moment, de vous raconter un incident dans lequel j' ai eu experimente sur une periode des derniers cinquante ans.

Au printemps 1930 quand je n'a vais que six ans, mon pere Am broise Gabriel Forest, du subir une operation pour la masto'ide. lnvalide comme il etait, l' ensemencement de son terrain etait im possi ble jusqu'a ce qu'un voisin du nom de George John Fisher est venu avec ses hommes, ses chevaux et ses machineries agricoles pour ensemencer la terre. Typiquement, de la cooperation entre voisins, une pratique qui encore vivante mais qui est peu usagee aujourd 'hui, M. Fisher a donne son aide sans remuneration. Un an plus t ard environ, M.

Fisher est mort. 107 SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: it is because of this far-sighted vision that I say tha t we must persevere. Social progress only comes with perseverance, education, tolerance and understan ding. Attitudes of people must change. I believe it is appropriate for me to tell you at this time of an incident in which I experimented over a period of 50 years. In the spring of 19 30, when I was only 6 years old, my father, Ambroise Gabriel Forest, was operated upon for mastoiditis.

Handi capped as he was, the se eding of hi s farm was im possible until a neighbour, George John Fisher, came with his men, his horse� and machinery to seed the land. Typical of co-operation between neigh bours, a

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 practice still alive but rare today. George John Fisher's help was without remuneration. A year or so later. Mr. Fisher passed away. I remember seeing our neighbour before his death. My father. under thr eat of excommunication by the Roman Catho lic Chur ch was forbidden from attending George Fisher's funeral. Our neighbour was of the Anglican faith. Earlier this year, Elizabeth Fisher, widow of George Fisher. passed away.

After consultation with my mother and my sister, we had a prayer card filled out arranging for mass to be celebrated for the repose of the soul of Elizabeth "Bessie" Fisher. The card was signed Elis e Forest and family. The commemorative mass to be celebrated at Holy Cross Catholic Church. All available members of our family attended the funeral service of Elizabeth Fisher which was officiated by Reverend Bruce Myles.

Le jour apres l'enterrement, la plus vielle des filles d' Eiizabeth Fisher, Mary Baxter appelle ma soeur Anna et exprime son appreciation vivement pour la marque de sympathie que notre famille lui avail donnee. Mary a demande a Anne de voir s'il etait possible de retarder la messe en question au moins jusqu'a ce que l'anee de la famille, aussi du nom de George, puis se y assister. Que les att itu des changent.

SIM ULTANEOUS TRANSLATION: The day after the funeral, the eldest daughter of Elizabeth Fisher called Mary Baxter, called my sister, Anna, and requested her appreciation for the sympathy expr essed by our families. Mary asked Anna if it was pos sible to dela y the commemor ative celebrat ion , at least until the return of the eldest brother, George, so he could be here to attend. How attitudes have changed. The spirit of ecumenism is hard at work in the world today. I sincerely hope that a like spirit of inter-cultural tolerance will continue to develop. In the

preamble of the Federal Governments Official Langua ges Act th ere is a qu otation of Northrop Frye. He wrote: "A sense of unity is the opposite of a sense of un iformity. Uniformity, where everyone "belongs", uses the same cliches, think s alike and beh aves alike, produces a society which seems comfortable at first but is totally lacking in human dignity. Real unity tolerates dissent and rejoices in variety of outlook and tradition. recognizes that it is man's destiny to unite and not to divide.

Uni ty, so understood, is the extra dimension that raises the sense of belonging into genuine human life." Mon ancetre paternel en Amerique etait un franc;;ais protestant. 11 fuyait la persecution religieuse de la France. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: My paternal ancestor in America was a French Protestant who fled religious pers ecution to France. Jessie de Forest, my paternal ancestor in America, was a Huguenot and in 16 23 he led a group of 300 men plus women and children out of France because of religious persecution and came to establish the first colony on Manhattan Island, now known as New York.

Conscious of the changes in my own backgrou nd, of my ever-deve loping Canadian culture, with social experiences steeped in conflict, but while maintaining a de ep desire to pr omote toleranc e and understan ding, I look into the future with confidence. I question Manitoba's decision to fight the federal government's proposed resolution for what I call Confederation 11, The Canada Act of 1980. We can still, however, enter a new era with full dignit y. I do belie ve tha t Mani toba can be a ki ngmak er for Canadian unity.

En 1977, j'e crivais a notre premier ministre du temps, pour lui demander de reconnaitre la langue fran<;:aise comme etant officielle au Manitoba. En

partie j'ai dit comme ceci: Etant depuis aussi longtemps que je pu isse m'en souvenir, epris de la cause des Canadiens-fran<;:ais du Manitoba, je me permets aujourd'hui de vous transmettre quelques -idees que je crois importantes dans le debat sur le probleme de l'enseignement en fran<;:ais dans cette province et sur la question de !'unit e canadienne. Vous conn aissez l'his toir e du Manitoba. Vous connaissez la difficulte de sa naissance comme province et les assauts legislatifs de 18 90 et 1916 sur les droits des Canadiens-fran<;:ais au Manitoba. Vous savez qu'a vec le projet de loi,

An act to provide that the English language shall be the official langu age of the province of Manitoba 18 90, le fran<;:ais fut aboli comme langue au Manitoba. Et qu'a vec l'amendement a l'acte scolaire 19 16 , le fran<;:ais fut bani comme langue d'enseignement. Je ne crois pas faire erreur lorsque j'avoue que rien depuis 1916 n'a ete fait pour redonner aux Canadien s-fran<;:ais du Manitoba les droits qui leur ont ete enleves en 18 90 et puis en 1916 . A la page 3 de ma lettre, j'ai dit ceci: La justice au Manitoba doit etre retablie avant qu'il y ait discussion sur une nouvelle constitution canadienne.

Et nous pouvons cons tater aujou rd'hui, M. le president, que cette justice nous a ete retablie le 13 decembre dernier. Je continue. Excusez mon hard iesse, mais je dois vous dire jusqu'a quel point j'ai confiance en vous. J'ose vous dire humblement que la voix du Manitoba sera pr ovidentielle dans le deba t sur !'uni te canadienne si l'autorite supreme de cette province que vous etes, disait au Manitobains et a la nation canadienne un peu en ces termes. 108 SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: In 1977, I wrote to our Premier of the day, asking him to recognize the French language as being official in Manitoba.

I said in part, being as far as I can remember taken with the cause of the French in Manitoba, I take the right today to submit to you certain ideas that I have on the problems of teac hi ng of French in this province, and the question of Canadian unity. We know the history of Manitoba. We know the di fficulty of its birth as a province and the legislative assaults in 18 90 and in 1916 on the rights of French Canadians in Manitoba. You know, that with the project of the law,

an act to provide that the English language shall be the official language of the province of Manitoba in 18 90, French was abolished as a language in Manitoba, and that with the amendment to The School Act in

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 1916 , French was banished as a langua ge of teaching. I don't believe that I am wrong when I admit that nothing since 1916 has been done to return to the French Canadians of Manitoba the rights which were removed in 18 90, as well as in 1916 . On Page 3 of my letter I stated this, "Justice in Manitoba must be established before there is any discussion on a new Canadian Constitution. We can state that the justice has been re-es tablished the 13 th of December of last year. I continue, I hum bly ask you to excus e my frankness.

I dare say to you that the voice of Manitoba would be providential in the debate on Canadian unity if the supreme authority of this province, said to Manitobans and to the Canadian nation something like this: I was actually putting words into the mouth of the then-P remier of Manitoba. I was suggesting that he should tell the Manitobans and the Canadian nation something like this: "We recognize the error of 18 90. In order to correct the situation, we will do everyt hing within our power to favour the redev elop ment of Fr ench in Ma nitoba.

In the Department of Education, we will have the French school network, the same as the Englis h school network exists in Quebec. In all the departments of the government of Manitoba, we will render services in both official langua ges of Manitoba, and re cogn izing the mosaic of Manitoba, we will encourage, not the development of one or other official languages, but the preservation of the div erse ethnic groups." Nous avons fait beaucoup de progr es, M. le presiden t .

Aujour d'hui nous avons d' abord la decision de la Cour supreme et en plus nous avons aussi un sentiment, je crois, tres fort dans tous les partis politiques pour voir a ce que celui-ci ou celui­ la puisse reussir a enchsser des droits. Nous avons a l'autre bout du pays, le gouvernement de M. Hatfield qui re conna lt pour sa pr ovince des dr oits linguistiques qui sont, je crois, adequats pour le moment, mais qui seront probablement davantage enchsses. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: We have progre ssed enormously, Mr . Chairman.

Today, we ha ve the decision of the Su preme Court, and as well we have a sentiment that is quite strong in all political parties to see that either this one or that one should be able to succeed entrenching rights that are necessary. We have the government of Mr . Hatfield, who recognizes for his province the linguistic rights which are, I believe, adequate for the moment, but which will be entrenched even more in the future. Eleven months have gone by since the historic decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada last December 13 th. The 18 90 Official Languages Act was then ruled unconstitutional and

Section 23 of our Manitoba Act 18 70 was reinstated as being the law of the land for equal status of the English and the French languages. Ladies and gentlemen, I feel that our provincial go vernment is hand icapped . Is it pressure by indi viduals who misunderstand or who are poorly informed? Is it partisan politics? Is it political trade off for a still und isclosed bounty? I recognize that public opinion at times favours the status quo.

However, after the famous decision of Chief Justice Samuel Freedman rendered public April 25, 197 9, concurr ed in by his colleagues of the Manitoba Cour t of Appeal, and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada by unanimous decision last December, Manitoba has a moral duty to respect the Constitution of this province and in particular,

Section 23. Manitoba does appear foolish in the eyes of Canadians by adopting the attitude of Premier Rene Levesque towards the second official language. I am reminded of Pierre Babin's remarks: "Those who govern lead the blind, those who teach give men eyes." If Manitoba effectively redeveloped bilingualism in this province as promised to Louis Aiel and to the people in 18 70, I am confident that Ontario would not be far behind in becoming a true member of Canada's bilingual family.

Al ors avec le Nouvea u-Brunswick, le Quebec, !' Ontario et le Manitoba, plus de deux tiers de la population canadienne seraient sur la bonne voie de la cooperation pour l'uni te dans ce que j'a ppelle la Conferedation 11. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: So with New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario and Manitoba, over 2/3 of the nation would be on the right track for co-operation for the unity in what I call Confederation 11 . The other pr ovinces, I am sure, could be encouraged to follow suit. The re I go, Mr . Chairman, my opti mism is overflowing again. I keep forgetting that old habits die hard.

Perhaps you could all benefit, however, from a brief flashback on Canada. In an

article written several years ago entitled "M anitoba Schooling Involves Many PM's, Bob Bowman had this to say: "One of the most bitter and puzzling issues in Canadian political history resulted from Manitoba's decision to abolish separate schools in 1890. lt not only rocked Manitoba, but Parliament in Ottawa as well. lt went thr ough all the courts, and even to the Privy Council in Britain. Prime Mi nister's MacDonald, Abbott, Thompson, MacKenzie Bowell, Tupper and Laurier were all involved. Six Prime Min isters in six years.

"When Canada acquired the north west from the Hudson's Bay Company in 18 70, one of the deals made to Louis Aiel was that there would be state­ supported schools for Roman Catholics in Manitoba. By 18 90 the complexion of Ma nito ba had been changed by the influx of Protestant settlers and the provincial government decided to abolish separate schools. "Sir John A. MacDonald escaped most of the row because he di ed in 18 91. Sir John Abbo tt, his successor, got it full force. He was glad to resign and get out of it after one year.

"Then Sir John Thompson, a Roman Catholic, became Prime Mi nister and seemed to be making some progress when he died suddenly while having lunch with Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle in 18 94. 109

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 "Sir MacKenzie Bowell was next, and he was in the worst position of all. MacKenzie Bowell was a former Grand Master of the Orange Order, but it was Conservative policy to try to restore separate schools in Manitoba. So he, the Orangemen, was supporting Roman Catholics, while Wilfrid Laurier, the Roman Catholic Leader of the Opposition, was supporting the protestants. The Liberal view was that the federal government had no right to inte rfere in education, a provincial matter.

"There was a Cabinet crisis in Ottawa on July 7, 18 95, that forced Mackenzie Bowell to resign a few months later when seven of his Min isters left the government. "Sir Charles Tupper, one of the Father s of Co nfedera tion, in London as Canadian High Commissioner since 18 94, was recalled to lead the Conservatives as Prime Mini ster and was defeated by Wilfrid Laurier in 18 96.

"So Wilfrid Laurier even tually ach ieved a compromise after he became Prime Mi nister in 18 96. lt was arranged to have religious teaching in the last half-hour of school by ch ristian pri ests and clergymen, but child ren were not forced to attend ." The perils of party politics never ceases) I believe it is characteristic of politicians to claim that they within a party are the only ones that are right. Compromise appears to be too difficult.

On the school question in Manitoba I have often heard politicians say: "The school question will be resolved only when we are in power, not before." M. le president, after ha ving made all th ese references about religious faith, the school question in Manitoba and the rest, one may still believe that our constitutional debate is either a religious conflict or an English versus French struggle. Far from that, ladies and gentlemen. May I assure those who may be so concerned, that the future of this country hangs on more than just two official languages. lt is a question of respect for all cultures and languages.

Canada can neither be an English or French "melting pot". By recog nizing this simple fact one will readily see tha t ther e is room in Canada's dev eloping culture for contributions by the various ethnic communities which form the great Canadian mosaic. Witho ut a firm resolve, however, to make th is nation effectively bilingual, we are promoting the two solitude theory. We are perpetuating a schizophrenic society, bilingual at the federal level and unilingual, at the provincial levels. People tend to ghetoize and that is absolutely wrong. Mr.

Chairman, Madam, opp ression against an official min ority leaves no hope for the other minorities. lt was undoub tedly to keep people in the dark that the Manitoba governments of 18 92, 1909, 19 77, failed to recognize the injustice of the iniqui tous law of 18 90. In 18 92 in the County Court of La Verend rye in Sainte-Anne, in 1909 in the county court of St. Bon iface and in 19 77 in my own case, our governments refused to appeal the court decisions which declared the 18 90 law ultra vires and unconstitutional. Et maintenant en 1980, je sens qu'on m'a vole quelque chose.

Je crois que le gouvernement a des conseillers qui lui recommandent de faire tout effort possible pour enle ver la

section 23 de notre constitution. Je ne peux pas expliquer pourquoi le departement de notre procureur-general n'a pas traite comme priorite la traduction officielle des actes de la cours, des tribunaux et les rglements ainsi que celui de la ville de Winnipeg. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: Now, in 1980, I feel cheated. I have the feeling that the government advisors are recom mending to them to do everyt hing possible to remove

Section 23 from our Constitution. I cannot explain why the Attorney-General 's department has not treated as a priority the official translation of the court acts and the regulations as well as The City of Winnip eg Act. As you may recall, I need those four documents in my appeal of the parking ticket conviction of July 27th, 1976. No, my case isn't finished. At the rate we are going it may be 198 5 before I can dispose of my case. Can I be blamed for being wary of provincial governments vis-a-vis language rights?

Can you blame me for suggesting that the federal government must consider plugging the loopholes which now could under some circumstances allow Manitoba, Quebec or any other province to opt out of certain terms of union? M. le president, plus tot dans mes remarques, je vous di sais qu'il n'y avait pas suf fisamment de garanties pour les dr oi ts lingui stiq ues ou l'a nchs sement de s dr oits lin guistiques dans la resolution proposee. Je vous refre maintenant aux sect ions 34 et 43 de I' Acte du Canada 1980: SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: Mr.

Chairman, earlier I stated that I believed that ther e was not sufficient gu arante es for the entrenchment of language rights in the proposed resolution. I now refer you to Sections 34 and 43 of The Canada Act of 1980:

Section 34: "Until

Part V comes into force, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all provinces, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor-General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by reso lutions of the Senate and Ho use of Commons and by the Legislative Assembly or government of each province to which the amendment applies." This

section provides a special rule whereby some amendments that would not apply to all provinces, such as language rights, such as the terms of union with certain pro vinc es, could be made wher e authori zed by both Houses of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the provinces concerned.

Section 43 is the same but it's after the two-year period of the Constitution. The Manitoba government since 18 70 has not had an enviable record in the realm of human rights, particularly minority language rights. However "hope springs etern al", and today's experience is one of them. And there are signs that Manitoba is working hard at bringing about the restoration of justice in that field. M. le president, je me demande si le gouvernement de cette province agit en bonne foi. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSL ATION: 110 • - -

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the government of this province is acting in good taste. Premier Lyon says tha t the Bill of Rig hts di sem bowels the British parlia mentar y system because it replaces parliamentary supremacy with wha t he calls "ju dge -made laws". Our Premier maintains that "rights are better protected by the Legislature".

My own experience of the past four years has proven that our legislative government has not protected my rights until told to do so by the Supreme Court of Canada. 1 have been waiting for 11 months now for a ti metable whe reby the Mani toba go ver nment proposes to restore the entrenched rights legislation of 18 70. Besides the simultaneous translation service in the Legislature and the pub lication in both official languages, all I want to know at this time is the government's commitment to respect ing the letter and spirit of the law.

Tel que Louis Aiel l'avait dit durant un discours politique en 18 74, "Tout ce que nous voulons, c'est !'a pplication de I'A cte du Manitoba de 18 70, rien de plus, mais egalement rien de moins. " SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: As Louis Aiel said during a political speech in 1874, "All that we want is the application of The Manitoba Act of 18 70, nothing more but equally nothing less".

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act stipulates, "Either the English or the French language may be used by any persons in the debates of the Legislature, but those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those Houses. " Pray tell me, is the Manitoba Gazette not a record or a journal, and I don't believe it is being published in French as yet? Is The Wills Act in the process of being translated? lt should be an absolute priority. At my own office I help people to prepare their wills and nine out of ten times they want to have it in French.

As it is, I believe it will have to be translated in English before it is probated and I don't think that should be. We are told that there is a dire need of translators. Wha t is the go vernment doin g to remedy this situa tion, at least on a long-range basis? Our schools, our universities, should be promoting this now important area in the communication of justice. Me sdames et Messieurs, ou aurais -je pu me tourner pour avoir le respect de mes droits sinon devant les tribunaux du pays?

SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLA TION: Ladies and Gentlemen, where could I have turned for the respect of my rights if not to the courts of the land? Even now, while claiming Legislative supremacy, Premier Lyon of Manitoba is going to the courts to seek an opinion. Evidently the courts are the means to enforce constitutional rights. Parlia mentar y suprem acy ha s prod uced segregation in the southern states. Parliamentary supremacy has produced the aparthied monstrosity of South Africa. Parliamentary supr emacy in the hands of unscrupulous politicians can become the tyranny of the majority. On another point, Mr.

Chairman, may I add that while opposing the entrenchment of rights in the name of parliamentary democracy, can we imagine why we are here today providing opinion on the matter of the proposed res olution, when the Manitoba government has already taken a uni lateral position? 1 believe that is called "consultation after the fact". The democratic process can be flouted at will when a majority government considers itself supreme over constitutional guaran tees. J'a i ete reticent dans la decision de ven ir ici devant vous aujourd 'hui. La democratie aprs les faits m'a pparait etre du verbia ge politique.

Je suis encour age to utefois en realisant que le gouvernement doit changer . . . doit le faire. Je pourrais souhaiter bonne chance au gouvernement de M. Lyo n, mais a mains qu'il y ait des changements, je crois que sa credibilite lui manque et qu'il va tot ou tard, comme premier ministre, doit se retirer ou etre retire. Le rapport de ce comite toutefois va survivre; il sera retenu; il sera usage pour d' autres gouvernements. SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: I was reluctant to make the decision of appearing before you to day, dem ocracy, after the fact, appears to me to be political verbiage.

I take heart, however, in realizing that the government must change as this one must. I could wish the Lyon government long life, but unless changes occur, I am afraid that his credibility is missing and that sooner or later as a Premier he will have to either retire or be retired . The report of this committee, however, will survive. it will be retained; it will be useful to other governments. People generally agree tha t the federal government's politically motivated plan of treating civil servants as learning a second language was a failure.

These same critics rightfully say that the second language should be taught from kin dergarten on. But what are we waiting for? I would like to speak to you about three points here. En 1978, j'etais invite a parler a !'occasion de la Journee du patrimoine a l'ecole Kelvin High School. Et apres avoir presente ma conference, une jeune fille du nom Blair Lockheart s'est levee pour me remercier. Elle parlait cette fille, je crois qu'elle etait en onzieme annee, elle parlait un franc;:ais impecable tellement que je me suis ferme les yeux et j'a urais jure que c'etait Sa majeste la reine Elizabeth qui parlait.

SIM ULTANEOUS TRANSLATION: In 1978, 1 was asked to speak at the Kelvin High School on Heritage Day, and after having spoken, a young girl called Blair Lockheart stood up and thanked me. She was speaking - and I think she was in Gr ade 11 - in absolutely im peccable French, so much so that I closed my eyes and I would have sworn that it was Queen Elizabeth speaking. Shanon Burns: Shanon Burns is the granddaught er of former Premier Doug Campbell. Shanon Burns took her kinde rgarten at Madame Ragot. She went to Sacre Coeur. She finally did her secondary schooling in St . Bonif ace College and 111

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 gradu ated last year with a Bachelor of Arts deg ree at St. Boniface College University. People will say, well, there is an anglophone who can speak French. As far as I am concerned, she is a true Canadian. She can possibly and effectively can speak as good French as I.

Like this young Blair Lockheart, that I mentioned before at Kelvin High School, who is now taking her Bachelor's degree at University of Manitoba, these two persons at least, and there are hundr eds more, and with Mani toba now at the forefront of all Canadian provinces in immersion schools, I am sure that is the way to go. What I would like to add and this is the point that I ha ve been pleading with. I pleaded with the government here.

This is one of the rights th at should be natural and recognized, that teaching of langua ges should be effectively started in kin dergarten when the childr en between the ages of 6 and 10 can best learn other languages. Lee Colvar is the daughter of our Dick Colvar, formerly the Leader of the Cons ervatives in Saskatchewan. Lee Colvar is a personal friend of my son. She is perfectly bilingual.

She is tea ching English in a university just south of Leon, France. it's ironic to see an indi vidual like Dick Colvar who, sometime ago when he was more spoken about, who has said that French language is not compatible in the west and yet his daughter is perfectly bilingual. He was born too early. Manitoba is foremost in the nation in the field of immersion schools. Manitoba has a duty to restore the balance of justice. There are no two ways about that.

I recall that former Premier Duff Roblin, was telling the people of Manitoba who were pressing for school rights during his term of office, saying, repeat ing, "Keep talking about it, keep talking". Mr . Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, yes, il nous taut parlementer, mais il ne taut pas exclure !'a ction posit ive in se tting the stage for the future development of our nation. We have to move into action, ... SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: . . . we have to talk about it, but we do not have to exclude the positive action . . .

As I look into the future, I can see that most Canadians will not only speak Canada's official languages but a third, fourth and fifth. That is the summit I am striving to reach. Believe me, Canada will then be the mecca of higher learning in the world. Remember, languages are the tools of life's learning. The art of langua ges is the basic art of communication. We begin to communicate and we are on the way to gr eater un ders tandin g and peaceful co-existence with others when we can talk with their tongues, listen with their ears, see with their eyes through their own language. Mr.

Chairman, madam, gentlemen, you will be seen in the future as being Manitoba's chief corps of advisers to the Fathers of our new Confederation. Thank you. MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Forest, will you permit questions? MR. FOREST: Yes, oui, Monsieur. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Mercier. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Forest, in your presentation you make some references to priorities of translation of court acts, etc. About, sir, two weeks ago, a little less than two weeks ago, I issued somewhat of a status report on translation. Are you familiar with the MR. FOREST: I wasn't at their press conference, Mr. Mercier. MR.

MERCIER: There was no press conference, sir, but are you aware, sir, that some 1, 500 pages of legislation is being translated including 14 Bills, including a very large Public Schools Act, that legal translation has been under the direction of a Mr. Belair, who has been seconded to the province by the Federal Department of the Secretary of State?

We've contracted with three translators from Ottawa; that we have advertised for qualified legal translators and out of 40 applicants, after adver tising in Winnip eg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montr eal and Quebec city, only one passed the civil test indicating the difficulty of finding qualified legal translators; that we are supplying translators to the courts and making people available there; that New Brunswick, since they passed their Official Languages Act, 11 years ago have only now turned to their regulations.

I'll give you, sir, a copy of this release that ind icates where we are and attempts to point out the effort that is being made, but some of the difficulties also that are being faced by the translation people within the department. MR. FOREST: I'd be pleased to have the official text, Mr. Chairman. However, in response to his question as to whether I was aware of all this, I must say that I recall seeing the

article in the newspaper, and like I always do on such important questions, I possibly have taken the clipping. My feeling, however, is whilst there is a problem, for example, as an analogy, if we were to suddenly discover that we had all the oil that we needed in this province and we had to explore it, would we not be rus hing to our un iversities and get them to produce engi neers and the necessary technology to gather that resource? I'm sure of that. A very effective case in point is that of the hydro­ electric power in Quebec.

The universities in Quebec have produc ed enough electrical technolo gy engine ers that they are now in the position to export that technology throughout the world. I am saying here, Mr. Chairman, that even if it takes another generation to prepare translators, to prepare bili ngual lawyers, bili ngual judge s, is anything being done today on this the 18 th day of November, 1980, or is it left to hazard, left to he who may wish to, he who may be able to afford? I'm confident.

If the government isn't doing it, I'm sure that the people, through the efforts of the parents for French and the imm ersion school gr oups, are, however, difficult it might be at times. I recall the hassle of the parents for French in St. James. Iron ically, I remember reading an

article by Vie Grant about him pressing parents in Fort Garry 112 - - -

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 to attend a course or to attend a meeting where immersion courses were to be discussed and he was all in favour of it. I'm saying that it is good; it is great, but I really don't care too much about all the efforts made on translating the laws of yesterday. I would expect that somehow or other we would take the necessary means to make sure that no more injustice is done and that the languages on that score in Manitoba are treated in equal rights. If not today, when is the ti metable? When will that be? This is it.

If it's going to be left like this, we'll always be walking with one foot shorter than the other and we'll always be hobbling along. I would like to know exactly when will the full restoration be possible. MR. MERCIER: Sir, if you don't care about the translation of acts, why did you say in your brief you are concerned about the priority of court acts, The City of Winn ipeg Acts? MR. FOREST: The priorities are there because we do need them, and as I mentioned, the reason why those were mentioned is because of my court case.

I don't know just whether we have not pressed enough for them or we have just been patient and I'm prepared to be patient for a long time. Even after I'm gone, I'm sure that the question is now enough in the open that it will continue to remedy itself. But 1 certainly would like to be relieved of this somewhat pressure of knowing that the case is not terminated. I say that there should be more importance on the everyday practice of the reinstatement of the official langua ges of Canada and it's in that field.

The reason why I have dwelled on it is that I find that - and to get back to the point in case of the Constitution that is being proposed - entrenchment has to be strongly secured; otherwise, we have no hope. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Desjardins. M. DESJARDINS: M. Forest, je vous ai cout avec atten tion. 11 me sem blait que parfois vous aviez montr un peu de dcouragement mais un peu plus tard, vous redeveniez l'ternel optimiste. J'aim erais vous poser une question.

SIMUL TANEOUS TRANSLATION: I have listened to you with gr eat atten tion. it seemed to me that occasionally you had a tone of discouragement, but periodically you became the eternal optimist. I would like to ask you a question now. I would like to ask you this question in English, Mr . Forest. I wonder if you could be kind enough to answer it in English because some of the people here are not fortunate enough to have the instrument that will give them the translation. In a way I might find that I'm putting you on the spot, but I think that this is something that should be answered.

In some qu arters you might have the reputation as a person that invites conflict that would like to encourage a confrontation. Now, 'it the means were given the Franco-Manitobans for them to enjoy what they consider their fundamental rights, can you envisage, can you see a change in climate that would make it possible to co-exist the francophone and the rest of Manitoba in a better way and work for the betterment of Manitoba in an atmosphere of un ity and seren ity? Could you elaborate on that or are you a professional . MR. FOREST: Agitator. MR. DESJARDINS: that? agitator. Could you tell us MR. FOREST: No, Mr.

Chairman. My struggle for rights in Ma nitoba were in itially confined to the community of St. Boniface. Some of you may recall the antics that I went thr ough in 1960 when I lead a delegation from St. Boniface called the Metro March against Metro. That all came about as a result of Mayor Juba sending us a letter of congratulations on the birth of our daughter, Nicole, in the fall of 19 59. He came to our house in 1960 and he says, "I don't want to gobble up St. Boniface". Lo and behold, ten years later or so, Juba was then the super mayor and St. Boniface was no more.

Somehow I have the faculty of foreseeing this, but I was fighting, and then on the last rung of the ladder in 19 76 when I got a unilingual ticket in St. Boniface - undoubtedly, if I got one, they were being issued to everybody - I felt that this was the last straw. I was going to court to obtain an injunction to prevent the city from issuing tickets until they came back bilingual, because tickets in St. Boniface have always been bilingual, always been bilingual.

If Judge Walker on the 27th of July had said this, "lt is true that The Official Language Act of 18 90 makes the courts English in Manitoba and things have to be transacted in English here, however, because we ha ve recog niz ed St. Bon iface hi story and St. Boniface cultural presence in allowing the use of both languages under

Section 80(3) of The City of Winnip eg Act and this communication is unilingual, case dism issed ". I would have been very happy, that's all I was looking for, but he opened this pandora box about constitutional rights and said that the ticket had to be in English. Lo and behold, if I hadn't appealed it, we would have had unilingual English tickets in St. Boniface. How many people by the hundreds have asked me if they could put their hands on a unilingual English ticket in St. Boniface today? I can tell them they can get one for speed ing.

They can get one for moving too fast on the street or making a wrong turn, but they cannot get a parking ticket anymore. As a matter of fact, you are all aware that last May, a day or so after the refere ndum, the City of Winnip eg passed an order stating that next time they print tr affic tickets in Winnipeg they will all be bilingual for the entire city. Am I to suggest that the city is moving faster than the province?

I don't know that the province has yet taken a stand on making sure that the RCMP, which is a federal force and act bilingual, generally, could have at their disposition, as well as the police force of all the city, bilingual speeding tickets, bilingual summonses, whatever they are called. I have and I have a tendency, Mr. Desjardins, to appear depressed at times. it's a question possibly of anxiety. One of the most recent incidents in my 113

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 office I am reluctant to relate, but I think I should reveals a very deep wound, a very deep attitude, and I'm talking about mixed marriages. I recognize now as I look over my files, some of the 2,000 customers who have chosen to slam the door on my nose and go to another agency, this recent incident was when a man, practically crying, said, "I 've had to cancel my insurance at your office because my wife insisted we do so." So this is where we're at. Now.

I am suffering not unduly because fortunately I have my own chil dren working at the office and my business has been good and it's recovering. I have had a young chap come into my office just in the past four days bringing me his entire fleet of trucks, moved into Manitoba from Quebec and he says, "I 've chosen to come to you, Mr. Forest, because your name is well known". He says, "I think perhaps you're the man I should do business with". That's quite relievi ng.

My own argument or my own ple a to you , gentlemen, is to recog nize, let's be serious about what we are going to do about this factor of our national identity, and I come back to the point, I think it's in the schools that it can be achieved. Unless parents today do not want their chil dren to learn a second or third or fourth language, I think the childr en them selves are prepared to go that route. They are prepared to go that route, and they will be better citizens, and better Canadians, and better world people for it. I don't kno w whether it ha s ans wered your question completely, Mr. Desjard ins MR.

DESJARDINS: Well, just partly. My question was, if these were changed, if you felt that, and the Franco-Manitobans felt that were given the means, could you see the climate change to have a province where everybody would pull together, not necessarily in uniformity, but in ... MR. FORES T: I foresee the day, Mr. Chairman, wh ere th ere will be no need for si mu ltaneous translation. I foresee the day, Mr. Chairman, where there will be no need for La So ciete franco ­ manitobaine, there should be no more need for it than there should exist today a Societe Franco or Anglo Manitobaine.

These organizations are there just because there is a struggle, because you have to, as I think it was, one of the early Presidents of the United States said, "The price of freedom is continuous vigilance". No, I am confident if there were steps, if there were positive steps, and then again, allow me to say this, Mr. Chairman, I was told last January that the government was not going to be too, too progressive on the practice of bringing French back into Manitoba because they had received 25 letters that were very strongly against it.

I'd like to have those 25 letters to compare them with some 25 and more that I've got, possibly the same people. No, the government has to show leadership and move ahead. lt is because of the attitudes of the governments of Canada, the provincial governments of Canada, that Trudeau stands so high today. lt is because of the opposition that I got from my own community that I was able to some time last month receive a recog nition, in ternational recog nition, from the Fr ench- speaking parliamentarians of the world. I do not want the recognition; I want everybody to be in the same boat and to row in unison.

I think we can arrive at that, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to say that I discard totally, to get back on course, this idea of not entrenchi ng the rights in the Constitution. Someone suggested to me this morning that Mr. Green yesterday had a very strong argument against the entrenchment by saying that it was going to remove the rights of labour and unions and that. Undou btedly, the only reason why he is saying it is because the labour movement is in such a strong power today that they have political clout.

But if the labour movement were in the position of the Catholic Women's League or other groups without political clout, I think perhaps that they wouldn't really be that concerned; they'd be more effectively working trying to make their voice heard. Now, I'll come back on that point if I might just take a tangent, Mr. Chairman, is to empha size the fact that I am for the entrenchment of human rights and the language rights in the Constitution. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Westbury. MRS. WESTBURY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and I wanted to thank Monsieur Forest for a moving presentat ion.

However, I want to ask him, I hope he'll forgive me because I smiled, almost chuckled, when he made reference to his experiences in the recei ving of justice through legislatures and legislative processes, and I wanted to ask Monsieur Forest whether he has any comment on the suggestions that have been made to me to the effects that the reason our Premier is so opposed to rights being left eventually to the Supreme Court is because of the experience our Premier has had with Monsieur Forest and the Supreme Court, and the fact that only the Supreme Court in the end upheld Monsieur Forest 's rights.

So that it's a mixed blessing in one sense, if it has, in the opinion of some people, so emb ittered our Premier that he no longer has confidence in that judici ary. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a question, Mrs. West bury? MRS. WESTBURY: That was my question. MR. FORE ST: Your question was - I go t the question. MRS. WESTBURY: lt was carefully placed in the form of a question. MR. FORES T: do agree that it possibly is something like that, that possibly makes Mr. Lyon reticent in moving ahead and recognizing what the federal government is proposing.

On that same score, and I am more familiar with what appears to be ludicrous on the part of Mr. Levesque, who is currently telling the people and he's convincing a lot of them, that with this entrenched rights the Quebec people will lose the right which they recently acquired by Bill 101 to have French as the only official language. Now, isn't that ludic rous. In other words, you can have a right put in 114 11 - -

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 your Constitution by legislative process whenever you want, even if it's a right to step on somebody. I don't think that my right goes any further than the end of my arm. If I inte rfere with somebody I lose my rights. This is, I think, possibly what's happening. 1 mentioned it in my remarks that it sounds foolish to see our provincial government in bed politically, so to speak, with the Queb ec government on this question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Watch that phrasing. MR. FOREST: it's not a word to be used. The bedrooms of the nation. MRS. WESTBURY: Collectively, not individually. MR.

FOREST: At any rate, I think that's it. I was in Ottawa to receive this decoration on the 12 th of September last, and as I mentioned earlier, I heard the remarks made by Mr. Stanfi eld. This is something that I haven't touched, but I am not in agreement either of having the use of French across the nation wher e numb ers requir e. You will remember Mr. Stanfield's remark, "If a blind person comes and asks for rights, are you going to say I'm sorry, but when your number is sufficient you will get your rights. No, I don't think that one should do that because choosing numbers will tend to ghe ttoize.

Should the people in Carberry, should the people in Bran don, Flin Flon, wher ever, not ha ve an opportunity as Canadian English -speak ing people, who are learning French to be able to say, yes, it's coming. Our generation of young children will all be exposed to this process. This is the way we've got to go. I think we've got to look ahead. Too much of our people are looking only as far as their nose.

At this particular occasion, also in Ottawa, I do remember that the Premiers in their opposition, were stating empha tically tha t they were in favour of Quebec. lt was strange to see the nine or ten Premiers of Canada, saying, Mr. Levesque, you're the greatest thing that's happened in this country. Don't make any bones about it. Mr. Levesque is a dedicated separatist. He wants to have a right in the Constitution to separate Quebec from Canada. Don't make any bones about it. That's his course of action. MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder, I have Mr. Schroeder on the list next.

I wonder if we could have our questions short and the answers short. We want to move along to some other delgations if we can before 5:30. Mr. Schroeder. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I have Mr. Uskiw. MR. SCHROEDER: I will try to keep my question fairly short. The first one is: Mr. Forest, have you seen a copy of the arg ument presented by the Government of Manitoba to the Court of Appeal in Manitoba with respect to its challenge to the Gov ernment of Canada on its bringing the Constitution . . MR. FOREST: No, I haven't, but I have called my lawyer last week.

Last week I called my lawyer and asked him to look into it, in the possibility of filing, before the 20th of this month, a counterproposal. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Forest, on Page 16 of that argument, you'll then be surprised to know that the case which you referred to, that is of Forest versus the Attorney-General of Manitoba, is being quoted by the Government of Manitoba in support of its arguments agains t the entr en ch ment of rights, against everyt hing that the Government of Canada is atte mpting to do in this Bill, The Cana d ian Constitution 1980 Act.

They, in fact, state on Page 16 of that argument that Manitoba join ed the union as a pr ovince pursuant to

an act of the Dominion Parliament, but here preceding this statute were negotiations with the inh abitants of the future province. In Forest versus AG of Manitoba, 1979, 4WWR, 229 at Page 245, Chief Justice Freedman said that the inhabitants of Mani toba were, "If in duced to supp ort the creation of a province and its union with Canada, only on the basis that their rights would be insured for the future".

This particular brief goes on to say that the Chief Justice was, of course, there referring to the French-speaking in hab itants and their ling ui stic rig hts, but the entire commun ity was involved in negotiations and the rights demanded included provincial status and the powers, rights and privileges ther efrom aris ing. The question is Mr. Forest ... MR. FOREST: What side are they on? MR. SCHROEDER: They are very clearly, Mr . Forest, on the side of the reactionaries, on the side of those opposing the patriation of the Constituti on, in support of those opposed to a Bill of Rights.

Do you have any comments on the use of that case in opposition to your proposition? MR. FOR EST : I don't kn ow. lt sounds rather strange for them to qu ote my case, which is supportive of The 18 70 Manitoba Act,

Section 23, which entre .nched use of French in the courts and the Legislature of Manitoba, and my victory in front of Judge Freedman and his colleagues, unanimous of course, and then unanimous again in Ottawa on the 13 th of December last when both decisions, that of my case and that of the Blaikie case for the English­ speaking minority of Quebec were rendered. I have often on occasion congratulated the powers that be for having brought the decisions down at the same time because the two are parallel, and its justice for one and justice for the other.

You cannot divide human rights and say human rights are going to be good for people in one province and not for another, or language rights the same way. it's got to be across the land. I'm going to have to study that, sir, and I'll have possibly more comment later on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw: MR. SAMUEL USKIW (Lac du Bonnet): Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Forest whether or not he places greater empha sis on entrenchment of language rights as opposed to a complete Charter of Rights? 115

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 MR. FOREST: I have to admit that without being paranoic, my expertise is on language rights. I have had umpteen times the occasion of participating in huma n rights deba tes, the Human Rig hts Commission of Manitoba. Unfortunately, two weeks ago I was to be present at a conference at the University of Manitoba, but at the same time pre­ arranged, I had to be in Ottawa.

I have to admit that I'v e got a penchant for language rights, but I am at the same time recog nizing that you cannot separate one with the other - language rights go along with human rights, because it connects there, one and the same parcel. MR.

USKIW: To pursue that further then, are you saying that if through the process of negotiations between the Prime Min ister of Canada and the provinces, at some stage there was some agreement which might limit the extent to which rights are going to be entrenched, and that that limitation would simply centre on entrenchment of language rights as a beginning to constitutional reform? Would you then not support that position if it was going to be sort of either an entrenchment of language rights only, or entrenchment of language rights as a first step in the evolution of our Constitution? MR.

FOREST: You're saying, separat ing the two, huma n rights and language rights, and entrenchment. My feeling at this moment for my own purpose, my own continuation of what I have been doing for the past four years, would be to say, yes, for me lang uage rights is foremost; but as I mentioned just a few moments ago, I at the same time recognize that human rights, and on that score one could ask, "Why should a province be against entrenchment of human rights which says, elections will be held every five years"? That's one of the conditions, and the transportation of the freedom of movement across the nation.

Are provincial politicians and premiers against that, and for what reason? I can adopt those. I can go along with all of those and I think that whatever dangers there might be in entrenchment of rights, they are mini mal compared to the massive advantages that they would have. MR. CHAIR MAN: Thank you, Mr. Forest. Any further questions from the committee? You insist, eh? Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I was interested in the comments that Mr. Forest made about three di fferent people that he chose to select here and compli mented them: Mi ss Lockheart, Shanon Burns and Lee Colvar.

I noted a comment you made, sir, and I just want to make sure that I haven't misunderstood, because I think it's wonderful to be able to speak a number of languages. Don't misund erstand me. But you ind icated and used the name Shanon Burns as being qualified to speak the French language as well as the English language and you thought that this person was really a trul y Canadian. I ask you, if she was not able to speak the French language, how would you describe her? MR.

FOREST: Well, she is truly Canadian also, but I think she has taken a greater step towards the Canad ian identi ty and Canadian culture that eventually will develop. We're developing a culture. You know, the nation is only 100 years old. And it cannot be an English culture nor a French culture; it's going to be Canadian. Our friends to the south are Americans, though they happen to speak English, they are not an English country. They are Americans. And we, I think, should be working and setting our sights on being truly Canadians with , of course, respect ing the two languages of the country.

I'm not adding anything new. You know for yourself if there are two official languages in Canada. MR. EINARSON: But really, Mr. Chairman, all I was asking, I wanted to make sur e that I didn't misu nderstand Mr. Forest when he would say, if a person was not able to speak the French language but spoke Engl ish , say, or even spoke anothe r language other than French is still not truly . MR. FOREST: Absolutely, absolutely. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CH AIRMAN: No further ques tions for Mr. Forest? I have Mrs. Friesen of Headingley next on the list. MRS. FRIESEN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Yes. MRS. FRIESEN: There was a M r. Cyr spoke earlier that he may become unemployed if he were not heard today and I would waive my invitation from you and let him speak so that he could carry on with his job. MR. CHAIRM AN: That's fine, Mrs. Friesen. I'm merely going by the list in front of me. Mr. Dennis Cyr, 400 Pritchard Avenue. Thank you, Mrs. Friesen. MR. DENNIS CYR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cyr, do you have copies of your brief for distribution? MR. CYR: No, I do not. MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't? MR. CYR: I have just basically notes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MR.

CYR: And they're not a continual flow. I've listened to the eloquence of some of the speakers and some of the articles they have brought up and they are very diversified and very well, but I look upon myself as basically your "man on the street" interview. That's basically how I'm going to go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR. CYR: The material that I've gathered to speak on basically I gathered through the media, which I have all of my press clippings for the last few 116

Tuesday, 18 November, 1980 months, and through television, Cable 7, on the parliamentary debates in Ottawa. First of all, I've listened to a lot of the people speak and they're speaking basically about what they would like to see, what type of rights entrenched or whatever in a new constitution, whatever,

whereas I think for myself the gist I got from your letter, that I got from the Clerk, was that you were seeking out opinions, my opinion, in regard to the Manitoba position tha t th ey are taking regard ing the Constitution as well as my opinion regarding the federal position in the Constitution. First of all, I might say that I was raised as a Liberal. My foster parents, I was raised with foster parents and we were raised as children as Liberals. Right up until the first time I voted, which happened to be in 19 68, I to o go t caught up in the Trudeaumania and I voted Liberal.

I've amended my ways since then, thank goodness, and I never will again vote - I don't say I never will again vote Liberal. I never will vote as long as Mr. Trudeau is in power. Also, at the time I must mention that I was raised anti-Conservative and I'v e always been anti­ Conservative until I heard Mr. Lyon speak at the Premiers' Conference in August. I was unemployed at the time so I happened to be able to catch all of the conference in Ottawa and it's at that time that I was able to form some opinions as to what is happening to this country.

Even at the first time I voted - you know, a lot of people go out and vote, and vote, vote, vote, they just go and mark an X and they go home. They don't know who or why they are voting. I'v e done that in the past. I have wakened up now and I think I'm going to vote better and I'll be more observant in the future. I want to say, first of all, right off the bat, that my opinion as far as the federal government repatriating the Constitution with their amending formula and the Ch arter of Rights, I am totall y dead against. I hesitate to even try to go to Ottawa to speak to that committee.

I might seek out the gentleman, the First Prime Mini ster of the land and I might punch him in the nose myself because I think he deserves it. I sort of watched how the parliamentarians react in the House of Commons. it's sort of like a little bit of a circus, I guess, with the head magician, the maestro, Mr. Trudeau, governing things there.

Basically, I say at this conference of the Premiers, when the leaked document came out, I wanted to get a copy, I don't know how or where to obtain a copy, if it's possible, of this leaked document, but some of the articles that were brought out in it, I can see as the days progress what Mr. Trudeau, in my opinion, is trying to pull over on the people of Canada. He talks about 53 years that we've tried to come to some agreement to bring home our Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned, be it 53 years or 530 years, we are going to try to build a better country for ourselves, for our children and so on. lt may take more than 53 years. lt was also brought up at the time of the deba tes of the proposed federal resolution that the combined time was 24 hours. Well, in those 53 years, the combined time dedicated to constitutional talks, I imagine, would be no more than a few weeks. When we're building our nation, 53 years may not be enough time and if there hasn't been agreement by the Pr em iers in th at time, perhaps we're not ready for it yet. We're still young.

One gentleman this morning mentioned Sweden in 19 49 ho w th ey in corpo rated their Freed om of Information - Sweden, I believe it was. I imagine they have been around a lot longer than we have or the Americans. And if it took until 1949 for them to come to this decision . . . I mean, we're babies compared to them. We've got a lot to learn. I don't think that Mr. Trudeau had a mandate to talk of repatriation of the Constitution. He also claimed that he speaks for the people. I agree with other opinions that he speaks for central Canada. I know how the different seats are situated.

I mean, how many seats Ontario has, and Quebec, and once he's got through Quebec and Ontario, I mean the rest is a forgone conclusion. We have no say-so; we do not. So what does he do? He sends out one of his Cabinet Min isters, his marionette, Mr. Axworthy; he sends him out here to try to string us along. Well, I'm not going to be strung along by him. He takes away, from what I'v e read recently and if I'm to understand, the federal government has taken away their share of what they were going to contribute to the City of Winnipeg, of money for the core area. In the meantime he sends Mr.

Axworthy here to open up a new federal office of some technical, whatever, type of office. That's not going to help me. I mean I'm not in the upper echelon of the community as far as working is concerned. I'm down there at the bottom. Like I say, I'v e taken two days off work. If my boss turns around and finds I'm gone, I maybe had it. But what I'm getting at is what he's trying to put back here into the west is something that is not going to help me. I don't know if it's going to help my childr en should they choose to take that route. I don't like the way Mr.

Trudeau brought out the resolution so suddenly and then he knew that the budget had to be brought out. So then he brought in closure. And then if the Conservatives said, well, we want to continue talking about the Constitution, he says, well, then you're not interested in what else is happening. You're not interested in getting on with the budget. Well, even that budget ... this wasn't a budget; that was an energy policy. A lot of it I go along with. I don't like the idea of having to pay more for my heating but I know somewhere down the line it's going to ha ve to happen. We all know that.

Everyt hing goes up, it doesn't come down, except horseshoes. I think it was this morning, Mr. Mercier asked Mr. Scott about a situation in the future where we might have a despotic ruler who might do harm to this nation. We don't have to look to the future. Our despotic ruler is there now; he's over in Saudi Arabia, and he isn't speaking French, as far as I'm concerned. I would also like to speak on the amending formula. The amending formula in my opinion, that the the government has put f