Document Information

Date: 1970-09-10
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Parliament, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, 28th Parl, 2nd Sess, No 8 (10 September 1970).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Second Session
Twenty-eighth Parliament, 1969-70

THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
of
THE SENATE
and of
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
on the
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

Senator

MAURICE LAMONTAGNE

Joint Chairmen

MARK MacGUIGAN
M.P.

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
AND EVIDENCE

No. 8

WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1970

WITNESSES

(See Minutes of Proceedings)

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
on the
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

HON. MAURICE LAMONTAGNE
Senator

Joint Chairmen

MR. MARK MacGUIGAN
M.P.

Representing the Senate

Senators

Cameron,
Fergusson,
Flynn,
Giguère,
Grosart,
Langlois,
McDonald,
Thompson,
Yuzyk—(10).

Representing the House of Commons

Messrs.

Allmand,
Asselin,
Breau,
Brewin,
Dinsdale,
1 Fairweather,
Fortin,
Gibson,
Hogarth,
Hopkins,
Lachance,
Marceau,
McQuaid,
2 Nielsen,
Osler,
Ouellet,
Roberts,
3 Rowland,
Woolliams—(20).

(Quorum—17)

Michael B. Kirby,
Patrick Savoie,

Joint Clerks of the Committee,

1 Replaced Mr. Baldwin on September 9, 1970.
2 Replaced Mr. Alexander on September 10, 1970.
3 Replaced Mr. Lewis on August 31, 1970.

[Text]

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, September 10, 1970.
(11)

The Special Joint Committee of the Senate
and of the House of Commons met this day at
8.15 p.m. in the Hotel Fort Garry, Winnipeg,
Manitoba. The Joint Chairman Mr. MacGuigan,
presided.

Members present:

Representing the Senate: The Honourable
Senators Fergusson, Grosart and Yuzyk—(3).

Representing the House of Commons: Messrs.
Allmand, Asselin, Dinsdale, Gibson, Hogarth,
Hopkins, Lachance, MacGuigan, Marceau,
McQuaid, Osler and Rowland—(l 2).

Attending: David L. McWilliam, Legal Ad-
viser; Mr. Jacques Malouin, Economic Adviser;
and Richard Gervais, Executive Assistant.

Witnesses: Councillor Jack Willis, Chairman,
Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg;
From the City of Winnipeg: Alderman S.
Rebchuk; and Alderman J. Zuken; From Cana-
dian Ukrainian Committee: John H. Symyck,
Vice-President; Anthony Yaremowich, Trea-
surer; and Dr. Izdiore H. Lynka; From Canada
Press Club: Hans-Hermann Roeder, President;
and Charles Dojack, Past-President; Professor
Arthur Blaid, Junior Chamber of Commerce of
Metropolitan Winnipeg:

The Joint Chairman made an introductory
statement and presented the members of the
Committee to the public. He then introduced
the first witness who welcomed the Committee
to Winnipeg on behalf of the Metropolitan Cor-
poration of Greater Winnipeg. Mr. Willis made a
statement supporting the brief entitled “The
Municipality in the Canadian Federation” pre-
pared by the Joint Municipal Committee on
Intergovernmental Relations, submitted to the
Ministers of Municipal Affairs in Winnipeg on
August 19, 1970, by the Canadian Federation
of Mayors and Municipalities.

Mr. Willis, having made his statement, answer-
ed a number of questions directed to him, after
which he was thanked by the Chairman.

The brief entitled “The Municipality in the
Canadian Federation” was filed with the clerk
of the Committee as exhibit No. 1.

The second group of witnesses were then in-
troduced. Alderman Rebchuk made a state-
ment, after which he and his colleague, Alder-
man Zuken, were questioned. Both were then
thanked for their presentation.

During questioning, it was

Agreed—That at all public meetings, briefs
supported by oral presentation but not fully
read into the record shall be printed, at the
discretion of the Chairman, as an appendix to
the proceedings and evidence of the day on
which such oral presentation was made.

The Joint Chairman then introduced the third
group of witnesses. The questioning of Messrs.
Yaremowich and Syrnyck being completed, the
Joint Chairman thanked the Canadian Ukrain-
ian Committee for thier valuable testimony.

The fourth group of witnesses were then in-
troduced and heard. At the conclusion of the
questioning, the Joint Chairman thanked
Messrs. Roeder and Dojack for their presen-
tation on behalf of the Canada Press Club.

The Joint Chairman then introduced the fifth
and final witness, Professor Braid of the Junior
Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Win-
nipeg. After an initial statement, the witness
was questioned. Later, the questioning being
completed, the Joint Chairman thanked him.

During the meeting, at the invitation of the
Joint Chairman, a number of private citizens
present participated in the question period.

The briefs submitted by the Canadian Ukrain-
ian Committee, the Canada Press Club and the
Junior Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan
Winnipeg having not been read into the record
are printed as appendices I, J and K, respec-
tively, to this day’s Minutes of Proceedings and
Evidence.

At 11.25 p.m. the Joint Chairman adjourned
the meeting until 10.00 a.m., Friday, Septem-
ber 11, 1970.

Patrick J. Savoie,
Joint Clerk of the Committee.

EVIDENCE

(Recorded by Electronic Apparatus)

Winnipeg, Thursday, 10 September 1970

The Chairman: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it
is a pleasure for me to call to order the first public
meeting of the Special Joint Committee of both Houses
of Parliament on the Constitution of Canada.

This Committee is charged with the responsibility of
inquiring into proposals for constitutional reform.
whether those proposals come from the federal gov-
ernment in Ottawa, from the provincial governments
in the various provinces, from the cities, or indeed
from the people of Canada.

We in the Committee have been charged with the
special responsibility of speaking to the people of
Canada direct about problems of constitutional reform
and, even more important of listening to them and
seeking to gather their opinions to aid us and the
government of Canada in our deliberations.

Even as a lawyer and a politician I think I can
express the view that the Constitution is too impor-
tant to be left to lawyers and politicians. It is some-
thing for all the people of Canada because it will
express the future shape of our country.

We already have held some hearings of this Com-
mittee in Ottawa. We began in May with the hearing of
federal government witnesses. We wfll continue hear-
ing some witnesses in Ottawa, witnesses with special
expertise on rather limited aspects of the Constitution.
But in addition to that we are holding a series of
public discussions across the country to seek, as I said,
the opinions of Canadians in every province and in the
territories to get as close as we can to the opinions of
the man in the street.

It seems fitting indeed that Winnipeg is the place
where our hearings commence. We are mindful that
this is Centennial Year for Manitoba. We are mindful
also that Manitoba and Winnipeg are more or less the
geographical centre of the country, being roughly
equal distances from both the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans. We also are mindful of the fact that this area
is a kind of microcosm of the whole of Canada,
containing as it doesnot only the hardy pioneers from
the British Isles but other pioneers who moved here,
French-speaking pioneers from Quebec and Eastern
Canada, and of course the great numbers of third-
force immigrants who came to Canada and make up
one of the most important parts of our population.
We feel that it is fitting that our hearings should begin
in a city such as this.

Later in this same initial trip we will be hearing
people in Brandon, St. Boniface, Thomson City and
Churchill in this province and, indeed, if the circum-
stances demand, we certainly will be prepared to come
back again to hear any further briefs which may be
needed. After that we are proceeding, on this initial
trip to the Yukon to get the territorial viewpoint.

I should point out that we are bound here by the
rules of parliamentary procedure. This is a committee
of the Canadian Parliament composed of both mem-
bers of the House of Commons and of the Senate,
representing all the regions of Canada and probably all
the provinces of Canada. We are sitting here doing the
same kind of work, although perhaps in a much more
valuable forum than would be the case if we were
sitting in Ottawa. But, because we are sitting as a
parliamentary committee, not only what we say but
what you say as well is being tape-recorded and will
appear in the Minutes and Proceedings of the Com-
mittee. The proceedings are available in both official
languages. More important, for our purposes here
tonight I must remind you that we will be bound by
the use of parliamentary language and the ordinary
concept of relevance which we use at committee
meetings in the House of Commons.

I am sure that these cautions are not necessary.
However, I think, it is well at the outset of a meeting
such as this to set out the rough bounds of our
discussion so that you will know how we can proceed.

We do want to hear you. We will call up here those
who have given us an indication in advance that they
wanted to present briefs. The microphones down there
are to enable you to make comments on the briefs which
are being presented here this evening. If your comment
is not on the brief we will try to have an open period
at the end of the evening, during which time you can
bring up other subjects which have not been raised
here tonight. We will be hearing briefs again here
tomorrow from 10.00 a.m. till probably 12.30 p.m.
and from 2.00 p.m. till 5 p.m. We have indicated in
advance to some of those who have given us notice
that they wanted to present briefs that they should
come tomorrow rather than attempting to present
their brief tonight so that we will not have all the
witnesses waiting their turn for an interminable length
of time. But you are welcome not only tonight; you
are welcome tomorrow morning and tomorrow after-
noon as well.

I think that takes care of the ground rules. From
now on the speakers will be seated, which is the
normal procedure in parliamentary committees, al-
though, as you know, in the House itself speakers
stand to speak.

We are pleased to see such a large tum-out here. We
are looking forward to your words and your opinions.
We are not so much doing the kind of job which royal
commissions often are assigned, that of finding out
abstruse facts; our purpose is to find out the views of
the people of Canada. We are here for that purpose,
and now let the constitutional dialogue begin.

Our first witness will be Councillor Jack Willis, Chair-
man of the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater
Winnipeg.

Mr. Jack Willis (Chairman of the Council, The Met-
ropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg): Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee, first of all I
would like to extend to you greetings and best wishes
from the Council of the Metropolitan Corporation of
Greater Winnipeg and the 530,000 citizens of the
metropolitan area.

We are most happy that you have selected Winnipeg,
the heart of the continent, as the first stop in the
series of public hearings that you wfll be conducting
on the Constitution of Canada and we wish you well
and success in this most difficult and arduous chore
with which you have been charged.

The preparation of recommendations for a new
constitution is going to require many long and arduous
hours and we wish you—good health and strength and
the necessary other ingredients to make your mission
successful.

I have been instructed by my Council to advise you,
Mr. Chairman and the Committee, that the Council is
endorsing the position paper of the Canadian Federa-
tion of Mayors and Municipalities. I understand the
Federation will be making a full presentation, some
time later this year and we will be present at that
presentation.

The basic position paper, amongst other things,
recommends the reallocation of responsibilities of
such things as cost of education, welfare and urban
mass transportation. Possibly one of the most impor-
tant matters which the position paper recommends is
the necessity that municipalities be recognized and
accepted as participating partners in the search for a
new Canadian Constitution and that they be given a
role consistent with their influence on the lives of the
Canadian people.

Mr. Chairman, I am not making any further submis-
sion at this time. I understand that you have the
position paper supplied by the Federation in their
presentation to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs
which took place here in Winnipeg some short time
ago, and we will make whatever further presentation
we have along with the Federation when they appear
before your Committee.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Willis.

Discussion of this brief may perhaps merge with that
of the City of Winnipeg, but before we proceed to
hear from the City perhaps we might hear from-
one of our own members who is one of your local
area members, Mr. E. B. Osler, representing Winnipeg
South Centre. He has indicated his interest in asking a
question of Mr. Willis and I would like therefore to call
on Mr. Osler at this time.

Mr. Osler: Mr. Chairman I do not have many ques-
tions to ask Mr. Willis. I would like to ask him to expand
for the benefit of all of us here, some of whom have
not studied your brief, on the relationship that he
would envision between provinces and municipalities
and municipalities and the federal government in the
future.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, the Federation in their
deliberations on their presentation are of the opinion
that because of the very great responsibilities that are
going to be that of the large urban areas where we are
advised that within the next 20 years 80 per cent of
our population are going to reside, it is going to be
necessary that the large area municipalities, the prov-
inces and the federal government be on a tripartite
basis in matters which pertain to the necessities of the
large urban centres, such as the amenities they are
going to require mainly mass transportation, matters
of welfare, education and housing. We feel that it is
vitally important that this be a tripartite position
rather than the present position where the municipal-
ities deal with the provincial governments and the
provincial governments then deal with the federal
government.

Mr. Osler: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could ask Mr.
Willis a question on education. We are going to hear
more about educationwhen the Chamber of Com-
merce comes, and that should be interesting. Are you
suggesting that there be a shift of responsibility, not
only in financing but in the content of education?

Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, the consideration given
up to this point has been mainly in the matter of
financing the educational responsibilities. The feeling
of the members of the Federation is that the basic
homeowner, the property owner, should be charged
with the responsibility of looking after services to the
property and that the matters of other types of ser-
vices which, through our tradition, have been built into
the tax structure of property but which really do not
relate to property in the servicing of same should be
the responsibility of the two senior governments.

Mr. Osler: I would go along with that completely. I
would like to get back to the question of whether or
not Mr. Willis or the brief suggest in any way how you
get around this nub of content of education.

Mr. Willis: Up to the present time, Mr. Chairman, we
have not in the Federation processed our final
presentation to a point that would deal with this
matter.

Mr. Osler: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that things
such as welfare and urban transportation are more
straightforward because I can visualize them as dollar
units that can be decided upon. Arising out of this
education thing as an example, I wonder what input
into the whole process of government say at a federal
level the municipalities envisage in the future?

The present Parliament of Canada is supposed to
speak for all the people of Canada. I am rather
attracted to your ideas but I wonder whether it means
that the federal Parliament of Canada becomes re-
dundant in some way if there are pyramids at various
levels that all have inputs?

Mr. Willis: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I am not
in a position to deal further with that. The Council
which I represent has no responsibility in the matter
of education and I am sure the City of Winnipeg will
be dealing with this matter more fully as they are the
responsible council here for the city itself. However,
the matter of the reallocation of this responsibility in
its entirety is a matter that is now being proceeded
with through the committees that we have set up in
the Federation and will be a matter of their presen-
tation in the official brief which you will be receiving
formally from the Federation at a later date.

Mr. Osler: I have a final question, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Willis does not feel perhaps, with this move towards
urbanization and with the adjustments in voting power
that must take place, at least a percentage of your
problem will not look after itself in the future. In
other words, people are moving from the country to
the city and the cities are going to have much more
power in the provincial legislature, and the provincial
legislature will more fully represent the views of those
who live in the city in the future, because of this. Is it
possible that this problem will look after itself
automatically?

Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that the
representation in the urban areas is going to shift to a
larger extent than it has at the present time. Whether
the members elected to the provincial legislature from
the urban areas are going to be more cognizant of the
urban problems than most provincial legislators appear
to be at the present time is one which we hope for.

With regard to the shift in population and the
possibility of this solving some of the problems, I
would say that at the present time the shift of the
rural population into the cities has been accentuating
our educational problems, particularly, as well as the
other problems in striving to finance them. It is true
that the provincial governments practically right across
Canada and in one case at least have taken over the
responsibility of education, and they have been
putting far more financial input from their resources
into education and also into welfare. Unfortunately,
the spiralling costs of these services have been in-
creasing at a more rapid rate than the input from the
provincial government, particularly in our case here,
has been able to take care of it.

Mr. Osler: Sorry, I said one more question, but if I
could have your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask one more.

As a citizen of Winnipeg I have always felt, Mr.
Chairman, that it is ridiculous for half a million people
to have four levels of government looking after them.
This may not be a valid thought, but if it were a valid
thought, would the submission that is presently before
us perpetuate four levels of government and just allow
a different input into the whole process of govern-
ment, or is there no alternative to four levels of
government for a half million people who are half the
population of the Province of Manitoba?

Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I think at least two levels
of govermnent discussed here in the Province of Mani-
toba are going to be changed in one manner or another
very shortly. How you would deal with the other two
levels I am at a loss to know under our present method
of democratic parliamentary procedure. I think to do
away with the municipalities, the municipal govern-
ments, would be a virtual impossibility because of the
complexity of their responsibilities. I hesitate to
suggest that it would be possible to do away with the
provincial governments because of their responsi-
bilities and have them take over the urban problems as
well as the provincial problems and I would be
horrified if the province suggested that we do away
with the govermnent of Canada!

The Joint Chairman (Mr. MacGuigan): I think we
would, too! Thank you very much, Mr. Willis.
Perhaps you can remain with us. I see Mr. Gibson has a
question, too, which we can take, then perhaps you
might remain with us in case during the presentation
of the City of Winnipeg some other matter arises that
you might want to comment on.

Mr. Osler: Mr. Chairman, because he is in the same
party as I am, may I have the privilege of being
political for a moment and pointing out to the
members from out of town of the Senate and the
House of Commons that one of the people in the
audience tonight is the former premier of Manitoba,
the Honourable D. L. Campbell. I think it is a mark,
not only of Mr. Cainpbell’s interest and intelligence to
want to see what is going on here but of the respect
that we should have for him that he is still interested
in what is going on in this country, although he has
not the responsibilities any more.

Mr. Campbell (Former Premier of Manitoba): Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Osler is saying that I have reformed!

The Joint Chairman (Mr. MacGuigan): Mr. Colin
Gibson is the member for Hamilton-Wentworth in
Ontario.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Willis, from your remarks I note a
profound fear that the municipalities have not been
given sufficient authority in the policies adopted as to
what education will be handed out to the schools in
the big cities. Would it be correct to say that you and
gentlemen like you are groping for a position in the
policy-making sphere as to education within your
boundaries, and that you want to have some represen-
tation, not delegated down to the lowest level, but
you want to have input into the policy in your area?

Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, if I gave this impression I
must apologize because I had no intention of that
interpretation. What I have been endeavouring to say
is that we are of the opinion the matter of education
cost, which is one of the major costs and one of the
most difficult costs to assess to the homeowner on the
real property tax, particularly due to the manner of
the rapid movement of our people across the country,
is one which we feel is going to have to be shifted off
the property tax to another method of financing. That
is what I had intended to state in this particular
matter, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. MacGuigan): Ladies and
gentlemen, as this municipal question is going to keep
coming up and indeed is coming up again immediately,
now, perhaps we could release Mr. Willis at this point
from the direct responsibility for answering further
questions. May I ask the Committee if you would be
willing to technically adjourn for a moment to allow a
photographer to take a picture of the Committee in
operation. We cannot under the rules of the House of
Commons have pictures taken while the Committee is
in session, but if we were to take a brief break I think
we could allow that to be done. Is that agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. MacGuigan): Gentlemen,
we will now resume the Committee meeting. The
meeting will now continue. I would like to call on the.
representatives of the City of Winnipeg who are Alder-
man Joseph Zuken and Alderman Rebchuk. I under-
stand that Alderman Rebchuk will present a brief on
behalf of the city and I am therefore pleased to turn
the microphone over to him. Alderman Rebchuk.

Mr. Sean Rebchuk (Alderman, City of Winnipeg):
Mr. Chairman and members of the Special Joint
Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons
on the Constitution of Canada, on behalf of Mayor
Juba who is out of the city I want to welcome you,
ladies and gentlemen, to the City of Winnipeg. As was
mentioned before, we are a mosiac city, a city that is
the heart of Canada and our brief is coming from the
heart of the City Council. I would like to introduce
some of the members that are here from Council in
support of our brief. They are Alderwoman Mrs. June
Westbury; Alderman Robert Steen; Aldennan Joseph
Zuken on my left; Alderman Max Mulder and Alder-
man Max Aliason. We will be studying a brief about 52
per cent of the population, of Greater Winnipeg.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. MacGuigan): Thank you
very much for your support and attendance, ladies and
gentlemen.

Mr. Rebchuk: The City of Winnipeg is pleased to
welcome you and to present to you some views on the
constitution of Canada with particular reference to
municipalities.

Under the British North America Act, Section 92(8)
the legislature in each province may exclusively make
laws in relation to municipal institutions in the prov-
ince. This is the only mention of local government in
the BNA Act with the exception of some reference to
cities, parts of cities and towns for purposes of the
then existing electoral division. The constitutional
status and powers or lack of them, assigned to munic-
ipalities were enacted some 103 years ago under
completely different economic, political and social
conditions and they have no relevance to the urban
realities of the nineteen seventies.

Our cities present a dramatic contrast to the small
and isolated pioneer and frontier settlements when
Confederation was born. From a Hudson’s Bay
Company trading post with a population of less than
200 at the time of Confederation, Winnipeg has grown
to a modern city of approximately 250,000 people. In
its Position Paper submitted last month by the Cana-
dian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to the
Conference of Ministers of Municipal Affairs in
Winnipeg the Federation declared:

The urbanization of Canadian society is proceed-
ing at the fastest rate of any developed country,
and the Economic Council of Canada estimates
that by 1980, 81 per cent of the total population
will be in urban communities with 60 per cent in
cities of 100,000 or more. What is even more
startling is the forecast that one-third of these will
live in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Thus,
the welfare and the way of life of a very substan-
tial majority of our population is involved in the
solution of this question.

The reference is to the need to redefine and realign
the increased responsibilities with which our cities are
confronted. With the growth of urbanization, the
importance and contribution of the cities to the
economic and political life of Canada has increased
greatly. It is often said that of all levels of govermnent
local government is closest to the people, and we do
not deny this assertion. However, this is cold comfort
to municipal councils which are caught in a constitu-
tional bind on the one hand and on the other are
burdened by increased responsibilities and the crip-
pling imbalance between the municipalities’ powers
and responsibilities. These problems rightfully should
be part of constitutional reform and should receive the
earnest consideration of your Committee and Par-
liament.

Constitutionally the municipalities are cast in an
inferior mold. To the extent that they are given any
role whatsoever in the BNA Act, it is one of being
creatures of theprovincial government and of occupy-
ing a subservient and lowly position. The heading of
Section 146 of the Constitution reads “Admission of
Other Colonies”. This reflects the conditions and rela-
tionships of the days of Queen Victoria. In a very real
sense the contitutional status of the municipalities un-
der the existing constitution is one of colonial depen-
dency. This situation which reflects a master-servant
relationship is outmoded and archaic. There are no ex-
isting constitutional guarantees for municipalities and
they are at the whim or mercy of the senior govem-
ments. Municipalities are carrying a staggering load of
expenditures for education, health and welfare, which
should be the financial responsibility of the senior gov-
ernments. Unless the municipalities are relieved of this
financial burden there will be no effective solution to
their ever-increasing financial plight.

Much is being said today and too little is being done
about the problem of regional disparity. There is,
however, another kind of disparity and that is the
disparity between the constitutional straitjacket in
which the municipalities find themselves and the lack
of adequate financing from the senior governments to
enable the municipalities to cope with the rising costs
for the needs of the modern urban communities. We
submit that the new Canadian constitution should
reflect the importance of the role and function of the
municipalities. This constitution should contain a Bill
of Rights for municipalities. The constitution should
spell out the jurisdictional responsibilities and fman-
cial resources available to the cities of Canada.

Recognizing the slow and painful process which has
characterized the evolution of a new constitution, we
urge that immediate measures by taken by the federal
and provincial governments not as a substitute for
constitutional reform but supplementary to such
reform. Such urgent measures should include financial
responsibility by the senior governments for the fi-
nancing of education, transportation, health and
welfare, and consultation with the cities at an early
stage of policymaking where the cities are involved in
carrying out such policies. Canadian cities should be
represented at federal-provincial conferences, includ-
ing constitutional conferences. We concur with the
Federation’s Position Paper above referred to that
the municipal level of government for all practical
purposes is still excluded from any realistic involve-
ment in matters in which it is inevitably concerned
and from discussions of basic issues of public policy.
this must change and the Canadian cities must be given
the constitutional status and equality of treatment
which will enable them to better serve their constit-
uents and Canada for unity and prosperity.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Dinsdale): Thank you
very much for that presentation, Aldennan Rebchuk.

As Acting Chairman of the Committee and in the
temporary absence of the permanent Chairman, Mr.
MacGuigan, I would like to indicate that I am the
representative from the second largest urban commu-
nity, Brandon, Manitoba.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Dinsdale): It is also a
bilingual constituency, of course, because it has the
double-barrelled name Brandon-Souris. We will hear
more of that later, on Saturday.

It is also my privilege to introduce Senator Paul
Yuzyk, who comes from the keystone province and
who is not only bilingual, he is trilingual. He is repre-
sentative of the mosaic, Alderman Rebchuk, to which
you referred in your brief. Senator Yuzyk has indi-
cated he wishes to open the questions on your presen-
tation.

Senator Yuzyk: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would
like to state I am very happy that our Committee has
commenced its briefings from Winnipeg. As a citizen
of Winnipeg since 1948, I have learned from the
Winnipeggers one thing that I would like to pass on to
others in Canada, that whatever starts in Winnipeg
always has a constructive and happy ending, and
consequently, I think our work here in the constitu-
tional field will end very happily. I am also very happy
that we are starting with the representatives from the
very grass roots, those who are closest to the people
since we believe in participatory democracy. Winnipeg
will set an example for other places just how to take
part in discussions regarding this very complex prob-
lem of the Constitution.

I have actually two questions that I would like to
ask of Mr. Rebchuk or Mr. Zuken in this case here. We
are well aware that in the work of the municipalities
the basis of the revenue, that is, the property tax, is
very limited and it prevents the municipalities from
carrying out many of the objectives and the services
they would like to perform. Mention of this has been
made in this brief. Could one or the other of the
gentlemen explain just what other sources of revenue
the municipalities would like to tap and in what man-
ner?

Mr. Rebchuk: I will answer that question. I also will
ask Alderman Zuken to add to the question asked by
Senator Paul Yuzyk. Your question was, what sources
would we like to tap, which is very broad. You can tap
the income tax the provincial government and the
federal government take from the City of Winnipeg.
Revenues derived are very broad and revenues of the
City of Winnipeg or any municipality are very narrow
because our revenues are derived from property tax, as
you stated. However, when you come to the question
mentioned in the brief of education, health and wel-
fare, and transportation, in our opinion and to answer
Mr. Osler, the member of Parliament, it a national
question, it is people. It does not refer strictly to the
property tax because property is physical, building
and land, which people buy and on which they live.
Roads should be the responsibility of the property
owner because they improve the property. Boulevards,
lanes, garbage collections, matters of that nature
should be the responsibility of the property owners,
but should education, which is mobile to the individ-
ual? For example, a university student who graduates
with a Ph.D. in Manitoba can leave Manitoba and go to
any other part of Canada or the world and yet a
property owner had to pay for flrat education. Very
litfle is given to the maintenance of education in
Winnipeg, about 52 to 54 per cent of our budget goes
towards education. You can add to that Mr. Zuken.

Mr. Joseph Zuken (Alderman, City of Winnipeg):
Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Senator, the key to
lifting the burden on the municipalities, in my opin-
ion, lies in the senior governments assuming the fman-
cial responsibility for education, health and welfare.
This has become more important with the in-gathering
of people into cities and the rapid process of urbaniza-
tion.

It is not a question of the municipalities seeking
extra forms of taxation. There may be differences
within council in the City of Winnipeg on this ques-
tion or with the municipalities, but we are meeting
here to discuss the problems in the context of the
cities and the context of the vast majority of the
people who now live in these areas. My opinion is that
if we could get a fair financial deal for the municipali-
ties in that the senior governments would lift from
them the evergrowing costs of eduation, health and
welfare, then the people in the municipalities through
their municipal councils would be given the opportu-
nity to meet the present and future services. I might
add to that, perhaps, the cost of transportation and
certainly the costs of housing, because housing is a
national problem. Municipalities should be given a
better financial deal regarding housing, so we actually
will be able to do what you in Ottawa have been
talking about, what the provincial people have been
talking about, and what municipal councils have been
talking about, but what has not yet been done in the
measure it should be done, meeting the housing crisis,
and by that I mean bringing to the municipalities, not
only your present legislation, but the finances to take
care of the amenities, the social amenities, which go
with housing. If we can lift the burden of the muni-
cipalities for health, education, welfare, housing and
transportation, I think then we will be giving new life
to the more important role that municipalities face
today and in the future.

Senator Yuzyk: I have a further question. Iwould
gather from what has been stated so far, that you
would like to see these rights spelled out in the new
Constitution we are talking about. It is a very interest-
ing proposal that you have made in your brief, a Bill
of Rights for municipalities. I do not know whether
you really mean a Bill of Rights as such, because we
have been discussing the matter of an entrenchment of
the Bill of Rights, human rights. The women in this
country may want ‘a bill also of rights for themselves.
We may find ourselves with quite a number of bills of
rights. However, I think you want certain rights writ-
ten into the Constitution that we do not have now in
the BNA Act and I am sure you have given thought to
what you would like to see written into the Constitu-
tion. Can you very briefly state what you would like
to see specified in this so-called Bill of Rights for
municipalities?

Mr. Rebchuk: Senator Yuzyk, Mr. Chairman, the
Bill of Rights, if you want to define it properly, you
have got to go back to what is a city, what makes a
city? When we use the words Bill of Rights we always
think of it in tenns of human beings. The Bill of
Rights in a municipality has the same status because it
is composed of people. To service people you have to
have a Bill of Rights and not be just a servant and a
creature. A creature can be anything. However, we
have a Bill of Rights and the Constitution states that
the senior government “shall” do this, not it “may”.
For example, in the social allowance act it says that
the federal government gives “X” dollars to the prov-
ince. Then the province says that the municipality
may pay out for welfare costs.

Would Parliament and would the Senate like the
City of Winnipeg where we have 7,000 people on
welfare say, “No, we shall not give it to you because
we have to take it from the taxpayer.” What would
happen? The same thing would apply in Montreal,
Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. There
are too many “mays” in power and not enough
“shalls” that the provincial government “shall” do that.

Senator Yuzyk: You would like to see then certain
powers spelled out very definitely just as provinces
have.

Mr. Zuken: If I may attempt to add to that. You
see, it would be very easy, gentlemen, if we were to
come here with a draft of a new Canadian Constitu-
tion, but it is a most difficult task. What our brief
from the City of Winnipeg attempts to do is to project
the need for change. The municipalities have changed
since the days of Queen Victoria, the Constitution
must reflect that. The new “made in Canada” consti-
tution, I submit, must reflect that change.

We do not have a text of a list of rights for the
municipalities, but may I just suggest some of the
items which should be considered. I believe the new
Canadian Constitution should indicate the new role of
municipalities by attempting to spell out to some
extent the jurisdictional responsibilities of the new
situation we have in Canada with the majority of the
people concentrated in the cities. It is my opinion the
Constitution should indicate that these municipalities
should have a guarantee of consultation, that is, there
should be a guarantee of consultation on the part of
the senior governments with the cities as our brief
states, “at an early state of policy making”.

We would like to see, perhaps, the provision that has
been suggested by Mayor O’Brien of Halifax, the pres-
ident of the Canadian Federation, that the federal
and provincial governments could not unilaterally
abandon certain health grants or educational grants
without consultation with the cities and the provincial
governments. There are other matters which, perhaps,
could form part of the rights. At the same time, it is
not only a question, I admit, of spelling out rights,
responsibilities also should be included in the Consti-
tution. Without taking into consideration the present
strength and role of the municipalities, the new Con-
stitution will not adequately reflect what is happening
in our country.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. MacGuigan): May I now
ask Mr. Douglas Rowland, who is the member for
Selkirk, to ask questions after which I will invite
anyone here either to ask a brief question or to make a
short comment on this subject. Mr. Rowland.

Mr. Rowland: Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to address
a question to the two representatives of the City of
Winnipeg which, perhaps, invites the same sort of
reply that Mr. Zuken gave to Senator Yuzyk. Have
you worked out the details of your proposals or are
you simply suggesting principles which should govern
our deliberations? I think most of us here are in
agreement that the present arrangement between the
municipalities and the two senior levels of govern-
ment, as expressed in the British North America Act,
is an inadequate expression of that relationship and
that it should be changed. However, in the brief you
indicate that the Constitution should spell out the
jurisdictional responsibilities and financial resources
available to the cities of Canada which brings to my
mind several problems to which I hope you can
address some remarks.

As you are well aware, I am sure, part of the reason
we are now examining the Canadian Constitution is
because the responsibilities and the financial resources
of the federal government and the provincial govern-
ments were laid down in the British North America Act
well over 100 years ago, but that allocation of respon-
sibilities and the resources to meet those respon-
sibilities have become inadequate to modern condi-
tions. If we were to spell out the responsibilities of
municipalities and we were to attempt to draft an
amendment formula for the Constitution, do you then
see the municipalities having a role to play in the
amendment process for the Constitution? If we were
to decide that the consent of two thirds of the prov-
inces under given conditions and the federal govem-
ment are necessary to amend the Constitution, do you
see as a result of municipalities’ responsibilities being
in the constitution, that they should also be part of
that amendment formula?

The second thing is, it would seem to me that it
would be inadequate to the task to simply treat all
municipalities alike. There is a distinct difference
between urban municipalities, large cities and rural
municipalities. Should their responsibilities be the
same in all cases? Do you envisage the kind of
responsibilities allocated to the municipalities under
the new Constitution as being less than they are now
responsible for or more? Do you see them as having
taxation sources equal to those responsibilities or are
you willing to take the responsibilities and trust senior
levels to pass on the revenues necessary to carry them
out? These are some of the problems that occur to
me. Once again, I am not trying to pour cold water on
the idea that a new relationship is needed, but I see
these as very practical problems that anyone consider-
ing a new Constitution must consider.

Mr. Rebchuk: Mr. Rowland, I will answer your
question and then Alderman Zuken will. As you
know, as members of Parliament should know, they
give a lump sum of money to each municipality for
education. They give it for the universities. There is so
much money given for secondary schools. In the Bill
of Rights, which was mentioned before, it should state
how much. It goes into the budget of the province and
the province does with it what it likes. We have no
idea of the amount of money the federal government
gives towards education. They have no department of
education. We do not deal directly with them on that
question at all. That is where the financial burden and
the burden of teaching comes in. Your contribution,
what is given, is not mentioned in the BNA Act at all,
as we said before.

Now, if you take health and welfare, it comes to the
same thing. There have been amendments in the
welfare. In the early part of pensions, the provincial
governments contributed so much and Ottawa con-
tributed so much, and Ottawa took it over. Now
today, on the social allowance, they say, you may.

Take the City of Winnipeg, for example, where
under 80 per cent over one mill, the province will pay
this less and give you so much, and it becomes con-
fused. To the citizens of Winnipeg, one mill would be
equivalent to about $550,000.

Is welfare the total responsibility of municipalities?
No. I said any people. We are all’ Canadians, and a
pattern should be set whether it is a small municipality
or a large municipality. The policy and the principle is
the same. In urbanization you can take the City of
Winnipeg alone, and it is taking in the big cities. We
have more people on welfare in the City of Winnipeg
than there are towns and villages and populations
totally. Now, is that just? Is that fair that it should go
on the property owners?

I will let you go on, Joe, and answer that part of the
question. I just wanted to give a few examples.

Mr. Zuken: Mr. Rowland and gentlemen, our brief
states that a practice should be established, and you
know there are two ways of getting at the problem,
one outside of the Constitution and one within the
Constitution, as well as enforcing or re-enforcing the
consultative process. Our brief takes a twin approach.
We say there should be changes in the Constitution
and at the same time that a mechanism of consultation
between the cities, the provinces and the federal
government should be established. We say that the
cities should be included in any constitutional con-
ference that is called, and the cities should be given a
voice.

Of course there are variations. There are differences
between the size and the role of let us say Plum
Coulee and the role of Metropolitan Winnipeg, and I
am not making any derogatory remarks about the
smaller centres. But I say that if the municipalities are
given constitutional rights of being equal partners in
policy-making within those spheres that belong to the
three levels of government or are common, and if the
municipalities are included in the constitutional con-
ferences, then through the Canadian Federation of
Mayors and Municipalities we will have a voice present
at these constitutional conferences and at all other
provincial-federal conferences, and the Canadian
Federation will then be able to make its voice felt with
respect to any amendment powers. I think that there
are various ones in which amendments and amending
practices could be considered in the Constitution. If
the municipalities are given the right of consultation,
then they will have a voice and they will also have
probably a voice with respect to any later changes in
the Constitution.

With respect to the responsibilities, may I revert to a
question that was formerly asked of Mr. Willis, the
Chairman of The Metropolitan Corporation? I believe
that financial responsibility, as has already been
repeatedly stated with respect to health, education
and welfare, should be the responsibility of the senior
government. However, gentlemen, I have had some
experience in educational matters in the Winnipeg
School Board in former years. I am strongly of the
opinion that while it is true that, as has been said, he
who pays may call the tune, I submit that the best
form would still be to leave the local administration in
charge of education, and this comes back to the ques-
tion that Mr. Osler asked, to seek the advice, and not
only the advice and the dialogue, but the participation
of the local governments with respect to the content
of education.

Mr. Osler: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a supplemen-
tary with Mr. Rowland’s indulgence?

The Chairman: Gentlemen, at this point I think I
must ask your co-operation. We have some four or five
other briefs to hear. There are several members who
want to ask questions and we also have to give the
people on the floor a chance to speak. I think, Mr.
Osler, that I should at least call on the other members
who have given me indication that they want to speak
and ask them to speak very briefly and to the point,
and I would ask the same thing of the witnesses at this
stage. I recognize Mr. Warren Allmand, representing
the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in Quebec.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I have somewhat the
same doubts as Mr. Rowland. While I am sympathetic
to the goals you put forward, and you start putting
this down in constitutional terms, there is some real
difficulty. For example, if in the Constitution you
gave the municipalities the right of consultation, and
let us say the right to certain financial resources, who
would decide on what is a municipality and the
boundaries of the municipality? Sooner or later
somebody would have to do that.

Now the province has that right, and somebody
mentioned earlier that there is a question now whether
you should make 14 municipalities in the Greater
Winnipeg area into one municipality. There are 26
municipalities on the Island of Montreal. If you put
that in the Constitution, does that mean that they all
have the right, no matter how small or how big? Who
decides? Are you going to give it all to the federal
government? Are you going to leave some to the
province? As I say, we are all sympathetic to these
goals, but when you start putting it down in exact
terms, then you run into some very difficult questions.

Mr. Zuken: I appreciate the complexity. That is why
you are here and that is why we are here. But I submit
that. if you started a process of these consultative
meetings on the provincial, federal and municipal
levels with the participation of the Canadian F edera-
tion of Mayors and Municipalities, you would be able
to get at these specifics.

Mr. Rebchuk: Further on to that, Mr. Chairman, I
will throw the question right back at the members of
Parliament and the Senate.

Who draws up the boundaries as- they constitute
your constituencies? Is it the federal government or
the federal office? The provincial boundaries are set
by the province. They do not come out of thin air. I
could say, why should there be 267 constituencies in
Canada? It is up to the members to find out what the
boundaries are, to give the sizes of what a municipality
could be or should be, and not be over-loaded. A good
example of your boundaries that have been changed is
in Toronto. They have gone into boroughs, have they
not?

Mr. Allmand: I do not think we should discuss this
further, but this is where the question is. Some things
are done through the ordinary legislative process and
they can be changed easier. Maybe many of these
problems can be done through the ordinary legislation
and policy-making of provincial and federal govern-
ments whithout putting them into the Constitution,
which is a different type of law that cannot be chan-
ged easily. It is the law really which governs the
making of all other laws, and that is why in this
Committee now we are discussing constitutional
change and not the changes of ordinary laws which
might help municipalities, and this is the difficulty.
You could do it through ordinary law, but whether
you should do it through constitutional change is
another question.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr.Allmand. Iwill now
call on Mr. Leonard Hopkins, representing Renfrew
North in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I would say that these
gentlemen here tonight are expressing themselves so
specifically on behalf of Winnipeg that you would
almost think they came from the Ottawa Valley.

One of the gentlemen made a very specific point
here a whfle ago concerning housing as a national
problem, as a national responsibility. I would like to
ask him if he is getting at the problem here of too
much entanglement by the time the federal funds
drain down to the municipal level first of all. Another
thing that concerns me greatly about the present
constitutional entanglement on the housing problems
of Canada is the fact that many provinces in Canada
have housing corporations, but the federal government
is paying 90 per cent of the cost of the housing that is
built by those provincial corporations. Iwould like to
ask him if he would be in agreement that the federal
government—and at the present time we do have
CMHC regional offices across Canada—should have the
constitutional right to deal directly with at least the
larger municipalities of Canada on the question of
housing.

Mr. Zuken: My answer is yes, to both questions. We
have problems because while there are variations, what
strikes me is that there is a tremendous amount in
common in the problems of the cities throughout
Canada. There is a maze of too much red tape, and we
in Winnipeg have had some very sorry experiences,
probably parallel to what you have had in Ottawa, in
dealing with this pyramid of red tape and superstruc-
tures to get at the housing question. Personally, I
would favour that we, the cities, should have the
opportunity of dealing with the federal government in
order to expedite the delivery of housing, particularly
to those people who need it most.

The Chairman: Mr. Osler, can you limit yourself to
just a few words?

Mr. Osler: Yes. No.

The Chairman: Two words.

Mr. Osler: Perhaps two sentences. This is preliminary
to the two sentences. It reverts back to the previous
area, and as an illustration, let us go back to educa-
tion. It still seems to me that while I agree with the
thrust of this gentleman’s argument, there would be
varying standards of education and these varying
standards would have varying costs, and whoever pays
the cost has to be directly responsible in some way for
those standards. I am only using education as an
example.

This is the nub of the problem that we are discussing
tonight as far as I am concerned. Where do we allocate
responsibility? I think that what you are saying is
correct and the thrust is right, but how can you help
us to allocate responsibility?

The Chairman: I think I will ask the witnesses to
take that as a rhetorical question Mr. Osler, because
they have already been expressing their views on this
subject. I now call on Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Asselin: I want to come back to the question of
inflation. Are you ready as witnesses to recommend to
the federal government to establish or to create a
department of housing?

Mr. Rebchuk: I did not get what you were saying.

Mr. Asselin: A department of housing, administra-
tively. Are you?

Mr. Zuken: Yes, if a department of housing really
functions. I am not being cynical about it. It is not
simply to create anothe department, but I think that it
flows logically from housing now as being perhaps the
number one social problem in Canada, and we need
the co-ordination of the work. We need the work to be
expedited and we have to deal with it on the basis of
disparity, and housing particularly for the low-income
groups. There are apartment blocks going up every-
where and that is a good development, but I have said
it often and I will repeat it again, that is is small
comfort to the old age pensioner to read about sauna
baths and swimming pools in the posh apartment
blocks when the majority of the people who need
decent housing are not given the opportunity to have
what would be the right of every Canadian.

The Chairman: I will now invite people from the
floor who wish to participate to speak briefly. I ask
you not to emulate the members of Parliament in the
length of their preambles but to speak directly and to
the point.

Would you approach a microphone, please, and give
us your name? If it is a difficult name, spell it so that
it can be recorded properly.

Mr. Harold Long: My name is Harold Long and I do
not think I need a microphone. So far you have
presented two briefs or two briefs have been presented
here, wigwaging between the powers of the provin e
and the federal government. I do not think that has
any place in this examination. I would like you to get
on with the business, to hear all the briefs that there
are that people want to speak about.

The Chairman: Thank you for your advice, but . . .

Mr. Long: Can you give me a reply?

The Chairman: Well, I am just about to give you a
reply, sir, by inviting someone else to come and take
over the floor.

Are there any other comments from the floor? Well,
perhaps you would like to hold your fire for the next
area, and I will therefore thank the witnesses before us
very much for their fine presentation and invite the
next witnesses to come forward.

The next group is the Ukranian Canadian Commit-
tee, and I ask them to come forward, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, the brief of the Ukranian
Canadian Committee will be presented by Mr. An-
thony Yaremowich. May I ask you, Mr. Yaremowich,
if you have a lengthy brief? In that case, I would ask
you to summarize it.

It is 15 pages. Well, I think, ladies and genflemen,
the rule we would like to establish is that any brief of
more than two or three pages should be summarized
and not read in its entirety before us. I think that this
will provide a livelier meeting for us and at the same
time will not consume so much of the time that could
otherwise be available to the Committee.

The brief, of course, wfll be reprinted with the
Minutes of the meeting, and will be completely avail-
able. But I would like to ask the witnesses to summa-
rize and perhaps to pick out various paragraphs in
which they could express the greater part of their
message. Perhaps I might even at this time ask for a
motion to print the briefs at the Chairman’s discre-
tion, which I can assure you will be broadly exercised.
Mr. McQuaid.

Mr. McQuaid: I will second that.
Motion agreed to.
The Chairman: Mr. Yaremowich.

Mr. Anfliony Yaremowich (Ukranian Canadian
Committee): Mr. Chairman and members of the Joint
Committee of the Senate and House of Commons,
before giving the summary of our brief, I would like to
draw to your attention that we have present with us
our President of the Ukranian Canadian Committee, as
well as other members of the Ukranian Canadian
community in Winnipeg.

The Ukranian Canadian Committee is the co-
ordination body representing an overwhelming major-
ity of Canadians of Ukranian descent. It was organ-
ized 30 years ago to represent the common interest of
Ukranian Canadians. In this brief it is the intention of
the Committee to confine itself to issues and problems
which affect Ukranian Canadians culturally, ethnically
and lingualistically.

One of the points which we are bringing up is the
question of founding races or nations.

According to the BNA Act, we find that Confeder-
ation was formed by four provinces:Upper Canada,
Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
There is no mention about that being a racial union. It
was a territorial union. Furthermore, there were
expressions to the effect that Canada should have, at
that time, 1865, a flag with a rainbow to designate the
diversity of races, religions, sentiments and interests of
the different parts of the Confederation.

Now with the coming of Ukrainians to Canada, it is
important to point out that when Sir John A.
Macdonald was concerned about settling of Western
Canada, every effort was made to secure immigration
from western Europe. You will find in the brief what
success there was. Because it was impossible to attract
any immigration from western European countries,
Canada turned to eastern Europe and Ukrainians, the
western part of Ukraine which was part of the
Austrian-Hungarian empire at that time, the province
of Galicia. That is why you often see that the
Ukrainians called Galicians. That is where Sir Clifford
Sifton got his idea when he said:

I think a stalwart peasant in sheepskin coat,
born on the soil, whose forefathers have farmed
for ten generations, with a stout wife and a
half-dozen children, is good quality.

What efforts were actually made to secure this
immigration should be of interest. The governments
were not interested in having their people emigrate to
Canada. Here I quote from a letter by Lord
Strathcona:

All agents claim that they have been active in
organizing the movement from Galicia. They say
that they have obtained from the people who
have already emigrated, and in other ways, an
immense number of addresses in the country, and
that they have been in correspondence with these
people for months past, sending them letters and
pamphlets. They have agents working for them
surreptitiously.

Of course the law will not permit anything in the
direction of directly encouraging emigration, and
these sub-agents are generally peddlars, hawkers
and others, who are going about the country and
in that way disseminate quietly but effectively
quantities of literature. They have also spent
considerable sums in advertising, such as law
permits. Although it is quite possible they may
exaggerate their efforts and their expenditure,
there is no doubt in my mind that they have been
spending both time and money in the endeavour
to increase the business from Galicia.

That shows you the efforts made by the Canadian
government. In this modern day, I do not know if you
would call that a very ethical way of conducting
business. However it was done and the people were
coming to Canada. They established their
institutions—churches and schools. They played their
part. In World War I we have Filip Konowal who was
awarded the Victoria Cross. There were some 40,000
other Ukrainians who served in World War II.

The problem with which we are faced now is the
fact that the role of ethnic culture is being played
down. When the original settlers came to Canada they
were regarded as Canadians. The phrase is used I
believe “the customer is always right” and the same
thing applied to the settlers. Now we are confronted
with problems about preserving the cultural heritage.
In fact just yesterday on the editorial page of the
Winnipeg Tribune was an article in which the author
stated:

They have excellent facilities with grills over wood
stoves . . . At the picnic sites we heard many
foreign tongues. Immigrants love the parks.

That could» be a third or fourth generation Canadian
born in Canada. He speaks Ukrainian, German or
Polish. Is that a foreign tongue? Hearing that are you
going to say first that he must be an immigrant. These
are the things that we would like to see stopped. We
would like to see concern and support for cultural
freedom. In this, the question of languages, we have
the Official Languages Act. The same thing applies to
a report in the Winnipeg Free Press just recently
following an interview with Mr. Duhamel, who is
Chairman of the Advisory Board.

What has suprised Mr. Duhamel is the will of the
French-language groups across the country to
maintain their culture and language even though it
may be only half-remembered. “We’re a little
late,” Mr. Duhamel adds. “Maybe we should have
had this kind of thing 50 years ago. But now that
we’ve started, we’re finding that people are seeking
help to reinvigorate their cultural life.”

We have no objection whatever to an official
language. We recognize the need for it. However, we
are concerned that the Official Languages Act is going
to be used at the same time for the propagation and
encouragement of cultures. In that respect we feel that
other ethnic groups should be given consideration as
well. Remember we are not opposing it. If the en-
couragement of language reinvigorates culture, then
why should it be limited to French and English? Why
should we not say: Let us in proportion see how we
can help the others? As far as civil rights are concem-
ed, we would like to see the civil rights brought
under federal responsibility under a new constitution.
We recommend that a clause stating that the mother
language of a Canadian citizen may be any one of the
languages of the world and that such languages be
called Canadian languages with the same applying to
culture be put in the Canadian constitution. We recom-
mend that the Canadian Charter of Human Rights
recognize the dignity of human beings, including the
rights to cultural freedom, language and their develop-
ment.

In principle, we have maintained that the Official
Languages Act should be abolished. However, we
would like to see some changes. Instead of creating
bilingual districts where there is a minority group of
10 per cent of the population, it should be’ 35 per cent.
All cultures, if subsidized by the Government of
Canada or other levels of govermnent, must be subsi-
dized in proportion to population. A proportion of
moneys should be made available for other languages
as well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr.
Yaremowich, for co-operating so excellently in
summarizing your paper. Before I call on the first
member for questioning, I would just like to point
out to members that we need the use of both of these
microphones. It is only the large microphone which
projects to this room; the small microphone is for the
recording apparatus. So be sure you have both micro-
phones available before you ask your question. I will
now call on Mr. Warren Allmand who has already been
introduced. Mr. Allmand?

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few
questions. First, I would like to try to understand in a
better way the recommendations which were put
before us by the witnesses. Gentlemen, in the third
recommendation in your brief, you suggest that the
minority groups in bilingual districts must constitute
at least 35 per cent instead of 10 per cent of the
population in order to have a minority language right
apply. I was just wondering why you suggested the
increase from 10 to 35 per cent?

There is no place that I know of where the minority
would constitute 35 per cent or even 25 per cent of
the population. I think the minority population of
Montreal is about 20 per cent. If you increase this to
35 per cent, I do not know if there will be very many
places in Canada where you would get any minority
group having language rights. Why the 35 per cent?

Mr. Hylynko: Mr. Chairman, if I might answer that
one. We are particularly concerned about those dis-
tricts in which the Ukrainians form a linguistic major-
ity and where, on top of that, they are going to be
required to take on both English and French. We
consider that English Canadians should be able to look
after themselves which they do very well. Districts like
the Dauphin area where Ukrainians are the predom-
inant majority and Beausejour where 50 per cent
are Ukrainian are the ones that concern us. When you
have a clear English-French situation, your 10 per cent
idea may work, but I think it is an entirely different
ball game where you have a Ukrainian majority and
two other people come in and make themselves of-
ficial over you.

Mr. Allmand: That is a different problem. The
Official Languages Act, by the way, does not oblige
peopleto work in two languages. It applies to federal
government institutions to provide services in a second
language in which there is a minority population of at
least 10 per cent. In other words, it must serve the
public in that language. It does not apply, for
example, to Germans or people of German extraction
or to people of Chinese extraction or Ukrainians or
Italians. These people do not need to learn French and
English and themselves work in French and English.
They would have to work in one or the other only.

Mr. Hylynko: This was the original spirit of the
thing but the situation has gone much further beyond
that. I happen to be a civil servant. I know that you
have to have a tri-monthly total immersion baptism in
the one or the other so that you have to have those
two languages if you want to be a hit in any way. If
you want to have the Ukrainians remain at the level of
carriers of water and hewers of wood, this is fine.
However, if you want to go to the next grade, you
must learn the two languages in the civil service. There
are some 300,000 jobs available in that area. We would
like to hold some of them in our own right, speaking
one or the other of the working languages of Canada.

Mr. Allmand: That is a real problem you put
forward. I do not know whether increasing the 10 per
cent to the 35 per cent would help that problem.

In your first recommendation you suggest that all
mother languages be considered as Canadian languages.
I want to ask you two questions on that. Take a man
whose grandfather or father came from Germany.
Would you consider German his mother language or
English, if he lives in Alberta or Saskatchewan or even
Montreal and grew up speaking mainly English. In
other words, how long would you perpetuate this, if
you were to put in the Constitution that all mother
tongues be considered Canadian languages. How long
would that go on?

Mr. Yaremowich: There is absolutely no obligation.
We are basing ourselves on what is used during the
census. They usually ask what is your mother tongue.
In other words, what are you using in the home. That
is the thing you see. Regardless of what origin a person
is, if he comes to Canada, decides that he wants to
forget his mother tongue and speak French or English
we have no arguments about it at all. We are
concerned about people who want to maintain their
traditions and who still use their language at home.
When the census taker comes around and says: “what
language do you use in the house?” and you say:
“Ukrainian”, he says that it is a foreign language. Yet
you are a fourth generation Canadian.

Mr. Allmand: I see. After a census was taken in
Canada, it ended up that people specified a total of 25
or 30 different mother tongues, you would have 25
or 30 Canadian languages. What rights would you give
these Canadian languages? Would you expect that all
the Canadian languages be used in the Canadian
Parliament or in the Canadian courts. What would be
the effect of having these mother tongues declared
Canadian languages?

Mr. Yaremowich: They would be able to study
them in school if there were sufficient numbers. For
example, we have in schools in Manitoba and in the
rest of western Canada where Ukrainian has been
brought in. If there is sufficient number of pupils who
speak a certain mother tongue or language, it should
be available to them as a cultural benefit. You are not
going to introduce this into Parliament or in the courts
or something like that. It is only for cultural
development. If you are compelled to lose your
language, you are bound to lose your traditions as
well. We are going to have just two official languages,
both of which we recognize are the two working
languages. However, we are looking at this from the
cultural point of view.

Mr. Allmand: I see. Therefore, you think it is best
that there be two official working languages, but that
certain rights be given to all the other languages?

Mr. Yaremowich: That is right.

Mr. Allmand: In your last recommendation, you say
a proportion of money should be made available for
these languages. I do not know if this brief was written
very recently or not but in the most recent edition of
the B&B report which dealt with other languages and
other cultural groups in Canada, it was recommended
that the federal government subsidize different
cultural groups in Canada. Those recommendations
have not been accepted or rejected yet by the
government. The Commission did recommend that
money be given to the many groups. Have you read
that report on the ethnic groups and do you think that
if their recommendations were put into effect, it
would meet this fourth recommendation in your
brief?

Mr. John H. Syrnyck (Ukrainian Canadian
Committee): Mr. Chairman, yes I think that if the 4th
volume of the B&B report were put into effect it
would go a long way in establishing the dignity of
what is called the third element. I can speak only for
the Ukrainian community in Canada. There is really
nothing very specific in it and as long as the federal
and provincial governments in whose jurisdiction the
different areas fall do not act on it, then nothing will
come out of it.

About other languages being regarded as Canadian
languages, an element of dignity is involved here. I
think that any language spoken by second and third
generation Canadians cannot be regarded as a foreign
language. It is a Canadian language although it may
have no official status but it is a Canadian language. It
is spoken by a Canadian in Canada on Canadian soil.

Mr. Allmand: This is my final question, Mr.
Chairman. One of the recommendations was that there
be guaranteed cultural freedom. I just wanted to point
out the way the federal govermnent have put out this
booklet making proposals on the Constitution and
they have this clause that they propose to put in this
charter of human rights and it reads as follows:

The Charter should also provide that every
individual in Canada is entitled not to be
discriminated against by reason of race, colour,
national or ethnic origin, religion, or sex
and it goes on to put this in detail and it says:

cannot be discriminated on national ethnic origin

Then there is another proposed clause right at the very
beginning of the Constitution and it says: one of the
objectives of the Canadian Constitution would be:

to promote national, economic, social and cultural
development [ . . . ] for all Canadians, in whatever
region they may live,

and it goes on.

In other words, it says all Canadians in whatever
region and their cultural development. I just wanted to
point out that first of all it says you cannot
discriminate against anybody because of their national
ethnic origins and in addition it says that the Canadian
Constitution should promote the development of all
cultures. I do not know, if these were adopted, if it
would help at all but I just wanted to point them out.

Mr. Hlynka: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
comment on what Mr. Allmand said. I would like to
make the comment that sometimes we read these same
things and we wonder whether we see the same ideas
as you do, the official Canadians. When we see that
you talk about diverse cultures and hear what goes on
in our national capital, generally it means two
cultures. When you talk of discrimination, again it has
been narrowed down to mean certain specific things.
If what you suggest is actually meant and interpreted
in the broadest sense, this meets our requirement but
sometimes reading some of these things from our
point of view, it looks as if the new Canadian
Constitution and the new principles that are being
developed seem to be based on the premise that all
Canadians are equal except that the French and the
English are more equal than all the others.

Mr. Allmand: Well, I hope that is not so. I have
finished. I will let somebody else answer the question.

The Chairman: One of the Committee members
wanted, to ask a question and then I will invite
comments from the floor. I would now call on Mr.
Melvin James McQuaid, representing the riding of
Cardigan in Prince Edward Island, a former Attorney
General of the Province of Prince Edward Island. Mr.
McQuaid.

Mr. McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, I just have one ques-
tion for the witness. I was rather disturbed to hear one
of the witnesses state that instructions had come out,
as I understood him to say, from somebody to the
civil servants that if they wished to get ahead in the
civil service they must take these immersion courses.
This, of course, if correct, is a radical departure from
the purpose of the Official Languages Act. The
Official Languages Act, of course, was established to
provide government services in both official languages
to the people of Canada. I would just like to make
sure, Mr. Chairman, that I have not misinterpreted the
remarks of the witness when he said that instructions
had come out from somebody to the civil servants that
if they hoped to be promoted, they must take these
immersion courses.

Mr. Hlynka: I would like to correct that by saying
not definite instructions but this is the general under-
standing; this is the general feeling among the people
and this seems to be promoted. We have been told
even this but you do not have to speak any language as
far as being able to live in Canada is concerned. But
for very practical reasons obviously, for advancing to
any responsible administrative position, this is now
understood to be a requirement.

Mr. McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, so far, has there been
any. concrete evidence that this is a fact, that if you
hope to get ahead you have to be conversant in both
languages? Have you any concrete examples of this
yet having taken place since the Official Languages
Act was passed?

Mr. Hlynka: I do not know whether I can give you
specific examples. What one has to do is to read,
although they have discontinued this now, the civil
service advertisements and they say for this particular
position we require fluency in the two working
languages.

Mr. McQuaid: But you have not, for example,
known of anybody’s fear of the Ukrainian language,
for example, having been denied promotion by reason
of the fact that he has not got both French and
English.

Mr. Hlynka: This is much too new. It takes a little
time but we are afraid that this will be one of the
disadvantages that we will have.

The Chairman: May I now invite contributions to
the floor. I would ask you to be brief but at least to
in language matters and education matters, which are
provincial matters under the present constitution, it
should make provision in the new Constitution for the
perpetuation of the languages of the other ethnic
groups of this country constituting one third,
approximately, of the entire Canadian population in
educational institutions in co-operation with provin-
cial educators where the population warrants it in
specific districts. If I can give an example, you talked
about French-English bilingual districts. It seems to
me obvious that in a tremendous number of districts a
great percentage or perhaps a majority is of descent
other than English or French and that the federal
government, if it is not involving itself in the teaching
of languages or supporting financially the teaching of
languages, at least the expression of the interest to
promote the teaching of the languages other than
English or French should be provided for in the
Constitution. The machinery should be set up within
the Constitution to provide financial help to the
provinces; otherwise it seems to me that although the
federal government is taking great strides with respect
to the French language and culture, it is practically
ignoring the striving of all other ethnic groups to keep
their languages and cultures alive, with no suggestion
of constitutional guarantee, educationally or other-
wise. I think that the federal government would be
remiss, I think this Committee would be remiss in not
recommending some strong constitutional provisions
to provide assistance. If it is going to involve itself in
provincial matters, then it should be provided for in
the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to make these comments.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Swystun.
I take it that this is not a question directed to the
witnesses but an expression of opinion, which I can
assure you the Committee will note. As far as the
present Constitution is concerned, of course, if there is
any question of the legality of what the federal
government or any other government does, it can be
referred to the courts but we are pleased to have your
suggestion for what the future Constitution should
contain. Thank you. Are there any further com-
ments?

May I then thank the witnesses very much for their
presentation to us and we will then call on the next
witnesses.

The next brief will be that of the Canada Press Club,
and I would ask the witnesses for that group to come
forward.

I am pleased now to call on the representatives of
the Canada Press Club to make their presentation. The
presentation will be made by Mr. Hans Roeder, who is
the President of that organization. Mr. Roeder.

Mr. Hans Roeder (President, Canada Press Club): Mr.
Chairman, honourable senators, members of Par-
liament, ladies and gentlemen, as President of the
Canada Press Club of Winnipeg, representing some 24
ethnic publications printed in Manitoba, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to present some six
resolutions which we trust will receive your
consideration. You have received for your review
background details of our press association. I do not
believe there is any real need for this material to be
read. Perhaps it might be in order for me to read our
resolutions only. Would this be your wish, Mr.
Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Roeder: Mr. Chairman, it might be in order not
to read the history of our Club. I would just like to
read the six resolutions which we prepared for you, if
that is in order.

The Chairman: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr.
Roeder. That would be, I think, the best from our
viewpoint too. I would be quite agreeable to that
suggestion and if you leave your full text with us it
can be appended to our hearings as your full brief.

Mr. Roeder: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Canada is a bilingual country.

2. Our Canadian nation is made up of peoples of
many cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it must be
recognized that Canada is a multicultural country.

3. The Ethnic Press of Canada feels very strongly
that in spite of numerous presentations made in regard
to the position of the Ethnic Press and their extensive
services to the various commissions to which our briefs
and presentations have been made, they were almost
completely ignored and in this regard we feel that
these commissions are disregarding the multicultural
nature of Canada.

4. Further evidence of the failure of the Govern-
ment of Canada to recognize the multicultural nature
of our country is in their lack of incentive to take
steps in order to implement representations to the
Secretary of State and to the Canada Council in regard
to assistance towards the continuation of the worthy
and historical Canada Ethnica series of books in
English and French.

5. The usefulness and value of international centres
in different parts of Canada have been well estab-
lished. We urge that this service be enlarged and that
the central principle be considered in the extension of
this service by the cosmopolitan nature of the people
of Canada.

6. All immigrants must wait 5 years before they can
become Canadian citizens excepting those from Brit-
ain; these immigrants must wait at least 5 years before
they have the privilege of voting. We urge that these
existing discriminatory measures against immigrants
from elsewhere other than the British Isles be removed
from any new or revised Constitution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Roeder. I
have an indication from Senator Allister Grosart who,
I think, resides in Pickering, Ontario. He is a Senator
from the Province of Ontario and I would call on
Senator Grosart to ask the first question.

Senator Grosart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
question may range over both the presentations, that
is the Canada Press Club and the Ukrainian Canadian
Committee because there is a very definite relationship
between the two.

The Chairman: Senator, could you get closer to the
large microphone?

Senator Grosart: Is that better, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes.

Senator Grosart: My first question is a very general
one because the brief of the Canadian Press Club refers
to a solution of some of the problems that they have
put before us as being possibly obtained by a new or
revised Constitution. The Ukrainian Canadian Com-
mittee suggested that there be amendments to the
British North America Act. I would like to ask the
witnesses whether they feel that we need a new
constitution or whether we can achieve the objectives
they seek by mere ad hoc or from-time-to-time
revisions.

Mr. Roeder: I would like to ask our Past President of
the Canadian Ethnic Press Federation to give you a
detailed answer.

Mr. Charles Dojack (Past President, Canada Press
Club): I think, Senator Grosart, that is your headache.

Your decision will be final, or your recommendation
to the government as to whether we should have a
revision of our constitution or a new constitution
would rest with yourself. We feel that there is need for
some revision. We do not think there is need for a
completely new constitution.

Senator Grosart: Do you think, Mr. Dojack, we
could patch it up to meet your requirements?

Mr. Dojack: With capable men like yourselves and
members from the Parliament, I am certain you can.

Senator Grosart: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
witnesses a question with respect to the dimensions of
their constituency. At page 1 of the brief, our
witnesses say they represent 26 ethnic publications.
Could I ask them how many ethnic publications there
are in total in Canada and what the total readership
is?

Mr. Dojack: There are approximately 86 various
ethnic publications at present being printed in Canada.
Incidentally, some of these are printed in Canada but
for other countries. I would say the readership of
these papers in Canada ranges from 2.5 million to 3
million readers,

Senator Grosart: Would you say, Mr. Dojack, that
the majority of those readers obtain their views only
in their mother tongues or largely in their mother
tongues?

Mr. Dojack: I would say, it depends on the degree of
time spent in the country. If they are relatively new
immigrants, I would think that it could go as high as
80 percent, but with established immigrants who have
been here for two or three years, in some instances it
could be 5 or 10 per cent.

Then again it depends on the ethnic group in
question. I think in the case of the German people,
many of them have come over here well informed on
the English and French language before they landed.
This may not be true in the case of the Italian
immigrant. In some instances we are advised that some
of the Italian immigrants arriving in Toronto do not
even read Italian and they cannot read the Italian
newspapers that are published in the City of Toronto.
I think it varies with every ethnic group. You cannot
be general to any real extent on that question.

Senator Grosart: But would you say that, by and
large, there are something like 2 million Canadian
residents who regularly read a publication, a news
publication, in their mother tongue?

Mr. Dojack: Yes.

Senator Grosart: Mr. Chairman, the witnesses make
the statement, item number one, that Canada is a
bilingual country. It seems to me that this may be at
variance with the statement of the Ukrainian Canadian
Committee, at page 4 of their brief, that any language
including French and English should be regarded by
the constitution as, and I quote the exact words,
“Canadian languages”. Do you see a contradiction in
your statement that Canada is a bilingual country and
the statement of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee
that any language should be regarded as a Canadian
language, and I presume that that means an official
Canadian language?

The Chairman: Perhaps it is not fair to ask these
gentlemen to interpret the previous brief. My own
impression was that the previous witnesses were not
asking that their language be regarded as an official
language but rather as something we may call a
national language but with a slightly different status.
But to the extent that the witnesses want to comment
on this, I will certainly invite their comments.

Senator Grosart: That may well have been your
impression, Mr. Chairman, but we are not asking the
witness what your impression was, I was asking what
his impression was.

Mr. Dojack: Senator Grosart, if you would read on
further in our resolutions, we do stress the multi-
cultural nature of this country, and perhaps in our
interpretation of multiculturalism, we introduce the
aspect of multilingualism.

Senator Grosart: I think you leave it out.

Mr. Dojack: Well, not necessarily. What is, in your
opinion, cultural?

Senator Grosart: I am asking the question.

Mr. Dojack: You would not accept my interpreta-
tion of multiculturalism. I would like to ask you what
is your interpretation of culture?

Senator Grosart: I would certainly say, Mr. Dojack,
that language is an essential element in culture.

Mr. Dojack: Therefore, our differences are not as
wide as you would tend to elaborate.

Senator Grosart: I will not argue the point here now
but I am merely coming back to your original
comment that Canada is a bilingual country and, by
your own interpretation, I wonder if you do not mean
that Canada is a multilingual country.

On page four, your recommendation number three,
you make a very serious charge. I may say that I hope
you will regard my question as sympathetic as, being
an ethnic myself having been born in Dublin, like
many others, I still resent the Anglo-Saxons taking
over the word British and calling this the British North
America Act. Anglo-Saxons were never British.

You make the serious charge that various Royal
Commissions have completely ignored the briefs as
presented by ethnic groups. Now “completely
ignored” is a pretty stringent charge. Could you
elaborate on that? I think you are right but I would
like to have one example.

Mr. Dojack: We made several presentations to the
B&B Commission, to the postal inquiry, to the mass
media.and others. But perhaps I could hit home more
strongly, if I made reference to but one commission
and to one recent presentation, that to the Postmaster
General concerning postal rates.

We met with the previous Postmaster General some
time before the question of postal increases was
publicized, asking to have the privilege of sitting on
the committee of inquiry. We did not receive that
privilege. When the question was first rumoured, we
made presentation to the now Postmaster General, the
Honourable Eric Kierans, in Ottawa, prior to Septem-
ber when the presentation was made and approved
very hurriedly in the House of Commons. We were
given some assurance that we would be dealt with
fairly. We made recommendations at that time.

The recommendations that were passed in the House
of Commons seriously affected, and very seriously
affected, the ethnic publications. I can elaborate to
say that some publications paid an increase of close to
2,000 per cent in their postal rates and this posed a
real hardship to the publications. It was predicted to
Mr. Kierans that if this rate was to continue, that the
ethnic press could not possibly continue to the extent
that they have. We predicted that within a year or two
after the implementation, that close to 250 per cent of
the ethnic press would possibly have to cease publica-
tion. In Winnipeg, four very outstanding and old
publications are out of publication at the moment.

I would not say, and I know Mr. Kierans’ first
statement would say, that it is not due primarily to
postal rates. There are other problems involved as well.
But I do feel that despite every effort that was made,
the presentation that was made by the ethnic press to
the postal hearings just seemed to have no effect
whatsoever. As a matter of fact we were even of the
impression, almost as we entered the room, of: Well,
gentlemen, you might as well say what you want to
say but it is not going to mean anything.

Senator Grosart: I do not think that is a case of
discrimination. Many others have the same impression.

Mr. Dojack: But they have a service that serves their
readership in a different way. The service that the
ethnic press render is beyond the equal of any other
publication, if you know what I mean, in the interpre-
tation of Canadian requirements to these people to
make them better, more-informed and more-
responsible Canadian citizens.

Senator Grosart: I have to agree that this may have
been a special case but I had exactly the same
treatment from Mr. Kierans.

Mr. Dojack: Well then, I hit home.

Senator Grosart: He was very pleasant and he
smiled, but…

Mr. Dojack: Do not misunderstand me. We have no
objection to Mr. Kierans. Perhaps he is one of the
most successful men in Canada but in this respect we
do feel we were unjustly treated.

Senator Grosart: I love him too.

Your recommendation refers to the very interesting
publication, Canada Ethnica. Mr. Dojack, could you
tell us just what happened? What publications did you
put out and what kind of difficulties did you run into
with the presentation you made to the Department of
the Secretary of State and the Canada Council in
respect to further funding?

Mr. Roeder: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dojack was
chairman for the Canada Ethnica in 1967, 1968 and
1969, and actually he started this whole Canada
Ethnica. I think he should answer that question.

Senator: Would you put these titles on the record.

Mr. Dojack: As a centennial project, the Canada
Ethnic Press Federation, our national body, proposed
a centennial project to undertake, in English and
French, a series of books on the contribution of each
of the ethnic groups in Canada. In some instances
these records have never been kept in Canada. We felt
this was an excellent opportunity to get going on this
worthwhile project. I might add that, thanks to the
foresight of Commissioner John Fisher, we were
strongly encouraged and the Commission did see, in
our effort, the possibility of keeping some permanent
record of the various groups and their contribution to
Canada.

Volume 1 was to be the combined history of the
Indian and Eskimo. We have not completed this. The
Icelanders being the first of the ethnic groups to come
to Canada, we felt they should have Volume 2.
Volume 3 was to be the Germans in Canada. This has
not been completed. Volume 4 was the Ukrainians in
Canada, by population again. We finished Volume 5,
the Lithuanians in Canada. We finished the volume
on the Poles in Canada, this was done in French, and
we completed the Italians in Canada. This is the first
record ever in Canada on the Italian people in our
country. We wanted to do a series on the Japanese in
Canada. There is no record, in many instances, of
these ethnic groups in either English or French. This
was a project that was undertaken. We could only do
these five volumes.

Since then, we have appealed to the Secretary of
State in letter on more than three occasions. We were
assured that this matter would be taken up with the
Canada Council and we personally made presentation
to the Secretary of State hoping that we would have
some assurance from him that we would get some
assistance. We are not asking for the writing assistance
but we are asking for some of the publishing assistan-
ce. Perhaps if we could entertain in a clown act, we
might get that support, but we want to be more
serious.

Senator Grosart: Of course, we are dealing with the
Constitution of Canada. How do you see this parti-
cular problem and some others you have mentioned
being rectified by any revisions or amendments or
re-writing of the Canadian Constitution?

Mr. Dojack: Perhaps direct reference could be made
to the multicultural nature of our country and perhaps
reference could be made, as the Ukrainian Canadian
Committee has expressed, to a more equal disburse-
ment of funds to these cultural assistance programs.

Senator Grosart: Would you see this as written into
the Canadian Constitution?

Mr. Dojack: Maybe it should be. This is a resolution
we are presenting for your consideration.

Senator Grosart: One final question, Mr. Chairman,
if I may. The witnesses have referred, in recommen-
dation number six on page four of their brief, to this
problem of Canadian citizenship. The statement is that
any immigrant to Canada can obtain citizenship only
after five years’ residence other than one from the
so-called British Isles. Can you tell us what efforts
have made on the part of the third force, if you like,
in Canada, to have this changed and with what
results?

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I
believe it is correct to state that in June of this year,
the Canada Elections Act was amended. I do not know
whether the Senate passed it but the House of
Commons has passed it, and there will be no discrimi-
nation.

Senator Yuzyk: It was also passed by the Senate.

Senator Grosart: I am not speaking of the Canada
Elections Act, of course. I am speaking of the Citizen-
ship Act. These are two very different things. I still ask
the witness what representations have been made to
have these changes made in the Citizenship Act and
with what results?

The Chairman: This question requires only that the
witness answer if he wishes.

Mr. Dojack: Numerous recommendations have been
made and presentations made to the Minister of
Citizenship and we understand from the Hon. Robert
Stanbury that this is personally one of his pet desires,
to reduce the period for citizenship and to make
further amendments to the Citizenship Act. As yet,
these have not been made, and now that you are here,
we would like to go on record as expressing our views
so that, in future, when another committee is sitting
down, they will say that they recall this being made by
the Canada Press Club.

Senator Grosart: Is it your view that there should be
written into the Canadian Constitution a requirement
that citizenship should be available to people of all
nations on an exactly equal basis?

Mr. Dojack: Yes.

Senator Grosart: That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Grosart.

Gentlemen, I would ask your co-operation at this
point. There is one other brief which I believe we must
hear tonight. There are several members who want to
ask further questions. I am certainly prepared to accept
them but I would ask them to be brief, and I would
ask any speakers from the floor to be brief.

I would now call on the Hon. Walter Dinsdale, the
member for Brandon-Souris, who briefly and very-
capably fulfilled the role of Chairman earlier during
my brief absence from the meeting.

Mr. Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My ques-
tioning, and I will be brief, embraces both the presen-
tation of the Canadian Ukrainian Committee as well as
the present brief. The viewpoint that is expressed by
these two groups seems to be concentrated in Western
Canada, as were certain attitudes towards the Official
Language Bill, as demonstrated by the voting pattern
there.

Does the Canadian Ethnic Press extend beyond the
boundaries of Western Canada? I notice the list
includes only representatives of Manitoba. Are there
branches in other parts of Canada which subscribe to
the viewpoint that is put forward in your brief?

Mr. Roeder: The Canada Ethnic Press Federation is
an organization above all the other ethnic press clubs
within Canada. There is one in British Columbia, one
in Manitoba, one in Ontario and another one in
Quebec.

Mr. Dinsdale: Have they expressed similar senti-
ments formally to the government or do they intend
to do so to this Committee?

Mr. Dojack: We have suggested that they do and we
have already written to them that they make presen-
tation to this Committee when they appear in their
city.

Mr. Dinsdale: So we have to anticipate that in the
future.

Your first proposition is that Canada is a bilingual
country and then you come down strongly in the
direction of the multicultural, multilingual concept,
the mosaic, which I suppose can be referred to as the
Western fact because of the nature of our population
base here. How do you reconcile those two view-
points? Are we multilingual or are we bilingual?
Which one do you give the emphasis to?

Mr. Dojack: I think we all recognize the fact that
there are two official languages in Canada and that
these have been passed by government and recognized
as such. We are prepared to go along with that but we
do not want to lose the aspect of the multiculturalism
of the various ethnic groups that make up our Canada
mosaic. I think it will be a sad day for Canada when
we do ignore the multicultural aspect of our country;
the richness of their music, their dances, their
costumes, their cooking, their poetry and their litera-
ture. These things all make Canada a very unique
country.

Mr. Dinsdale: Would you say that this is a viewpoint
that is more peculiar to Western Canada than to other
parts of Canada? What we are actually hearing now is
the western Canadian viewpoint on constitutional
discussions. We never participated in the discussions
which led up to the British North America Act.
Speaking as a Manitoban, we did not come into the
confederation until 1870.

Mr. Dojack: I think you would find this more
common. in the West, that is true. Let us take
Manitoba as an example; 48 per cent of the population
of Manitoba is other than French or English. Nine
per cent is French Canadian. You can understand that
the problems of Quebec almost apply to the ethnic
groups in Manitoba, if you want to spread your wings
and cover it all.

Mr. Dinsdale: Do you think that legislative coercion
such as laying down mathematical formulae of 10
per cent or 35 per cent can solve this problem, or
should it not be more the spirit of the law, rather than
the letter of the law?

Mr. Dojack: I do not think that would resolve it but
I think we should consider it. We would like to see
this consideration included in the new constitution.
Certainly it should be included in your discussions and
thinking in the preparation of the revised constitution.

Mr. Dinsdale: Do you support the idea of mathemat-
ical formulae; precise percentages laid down by
legislative decree to help the spirit of tolerance, good-
will and understanding in a country as diverse as
Canada?

Mr. Dojack: I am very sorry . . .

Mr. Dinsdale: We have been dealing with formulae
tonight and the Ukrainian Canadian brief said it should
be 35 per cent to establish a bilingual district. The
Official Languages Act says 10 per cent. Will mathe-
matical formulae resolve the problems of unity out of
diversity?

Mr. Dojack: I do not think so, but I think it will
help in formulating the decisions. I think it should be
considered. I do not think it is going to help. Would
you not say so? I think it is an important factor but I
do not think it is an essential factor.

The Chairman: Mr. Colin Gibson.

Senator Yuzyk: Mr. Chairman, I have one brief
question. In view of the fact that there are quite a
number of ethnic groups in Canada, the imple-
mentation of certain policies would have to be’carried
out by certain organs of the government. As we know,
in this case the Secretary of State makes pronoun-
cements regarding the money that is to be spent for
the French language in the various parts of the
country. Have you given any thought to the fact that
there should be some body within the government
such as a Department of Cultural Affairs where there
would be representatives from the ethnic groups to
look after the interests of the ethnic groups, and that
this should be written into the constitution?

Mr. Dojack: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there any comments from the
floor?

Mr. Ken Bernard: Yes. Mr. Chairman, my name is
Ken Bernard. In general I think I would like to agree
with the last two briefs, but I found difficulty with
their very practical kind of implementation when you
were speaking of constitutional change. I think they
are dealing with very real practicalities that have to be
spelled out at different levels, and perhaps not the
Constitution. 1 would like to rephrase what I hear
them saying. I think what we want is a rewriting of the
constitution. We want it to be rewritten in terms other
than Upper and Lower Canada. We want it to be
rewritten in terms of pluralism. We have to realize that
the battle of the Plains of Abraham must stop being
the measure of Canada, that Ontario and Quebec are
not the measure of the whole country. To put it in
other terms, I really think that is the question here. I
think it is very difficult for people from the Upper and
Lower Canada provinces to appreciate the pluralism of
the West.

While I think that it perhaps comes out in too
concrete a form in these two briefs, and not really in
terms of constitutional change, I really think that the
pluralism must be recognized so that the historical
facts of Canada’s beginnings is left in the history
books and is no longer enshrined in the constitution,
and in constitutional implementation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bemard,
for your contribution.

Are there any other comments from the floor?

Mr. Hlynka: My name is Hlynka and Ihave spoken
before. I would like to put a question to Mr. Roeder.
He left the impression — perhaps not wittingly — that
the ethnic press was for those people who could
neither speak nor read English or French, and I was
wondering whether I got the wrong impression. I have
been reading the ethnic press for many years. I speak
English reasonably well and I read French reasonably
well, but there is an aspect of the news that is simply
not covered in our daily English press. Could you
comment on that?

Mr. Roeder: Actually, you asked two questions. Is
that not so?

Mr. Hlynka: Well, try to answer them both.

Mr. Roeder: With respect to question No. 1, there
are certainly some people in Manitoba who carmot
cannot read English or French. Take the area between
Altona and further to the west. There are some little
villages there — I do not want to name any particular
ethnic group — where the people cannot speak English
or French.

My newspaper is published in both German and
English, in the two languages, and in many of our own
papers there are some items which you will not find in
the Free Press or the Tribune which concern only
ethnic people or a particular ethnic group. I think that
is the most important thing for our ethnic newspapers,
to publish this information for a particular ethnic
group.

The Chairman: Thank you. If there are no further
comments from the floor, I would like to thank our
witnesses very much for their fine presentations.

Ladies and gentlemen, the last brief for the evening
will be that of the Junior Chamber of Commerce. I
express our regrets to Mr. Belows and ask him to
return for tomorrow afternoon’s session.

May I also ask if Carolyn Garlick is in the audience?
If she is, would she please communicate with our staff
so that we can do our best to arrange a time for her to
present her brief. The brief of the Junior Chamber of
Commerce will be presented by Professor E. Arthur
Braid, of the Faculty of Law of the University of
Manitoba.

I will give Mr. Braid a moment to open his briefcase
and then I will ask him to speak.

Professor E. Arthur Braid, (The Jaycee Units of
Metropolitan Winnipeg): Mr. Chairman, members of
the Committee and ladies and gentlemen, I represent
the Metropolitan Units of the Junior Chamber of
Commerce, otherwise known as the “Jaycees.” The
Jaycees is a young men’s organization which is
dedicated to community-betterrnent. There are
200,000 of us in the world through the Junior
Chamber International and there are 8,000 of us in
Canada. This brief is submitted by a small proportion
of them, 250 from Metropolitan Winnipeg.

One of the tenets of the Canadian Jaycees is
Canadianism, and this is why we involve ourselves in
this particular Committee’s deliberation. I think we are
the first group here that does not have an axe to grind
or does not have a personal or vested interest. We hope
we are purely objective. We are nonpolitical and
nonsectarian and we call things the way we see them.

The committee that prepared our brief was made up
of 12 members of the various units and they come
from all walks of life. We have on our committee
accountants, lawyers, clerks, adjusters, civil servants.
insurance salesmen, opticians and small business oper-
ators. So, we represent a wide spectrum of the public.
We have picked certain areas, and we have made
recommendations with respect to those areas.

We state in our preamble that we regret that we have
not had the time, or, in some cases, the competence to
comment on other areas that we feel require consi-
deration by this Committee, and indeed subsequently
by constitutional enactment. Two of our recommend-
ations, Mr. Chairman, deal with government policy as
opposed to constitutional action. So you wish me to
deal with those by just reading out the recommend-
ations, or are they within your terms of reference?

The Chairman: They are not strictly within our
terms of reference. I think, as they might possibly
have some constitutional aspects, you might read them
to put them on the record, but I do not think we will
want any further discussion of them.

Professor Braid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
indicate which ones they are when I come to them. We
have made recommendations on six areas; the
monarchy, Canadian sovereignty, the Senate, educa-
tion, bilingualism and biculturalism and immigration.

I will first deal with the monarchy. Our first rec-
ommendation is that the concept of the English
Crown as the titular head of the federal and provincial
governments be retained for the present.

Our second recommendation deals with Canadian
sovereignty. This is one of the ones, Mr. Chairman, for
which do not foresee any constitutional amendment. I
think it is a question of government implementation
and government policy. First, that Canada develop and
deal with its natural resources in such a way that it
will not create vested or other interests in favour of
foreign countries that may irrevocably obligate Canada
to those countries in the future. Second, that Canada
attempt, so far as it is practicable, to develop its
natural resources without obligation to other countries
and that such development be for domestic purposes
and advantages, without commitments to uncontrolled
economic growth.

Our third recommendation deals with the Senate.
We make three recommendations. First, that the
Senate be restructured in order to give each province
an equal voice in its affairs. Second, that each province
elect or appoint its now representatives to the Senate.
Third, that consideration be given to defining a new
role for the Senate that will make equal provincial
participation meaningful.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I see we have a
convert already. In tonight’s Winnipeg Free Press there
is an article by the hon. Member from Winnipeg South
Centre, E. B. Osler, and he puts forward a somewhat
similar viewpoint.

Our fourth recommendation deals with education.
We recommend that the subject matter of education
be a dual federal-provincial responsibility in the same
manner as agriculture and immigration is dealt with in
Section 95 of the British North America Act.

Our fifth recommendation deals with bilingualism
and biculturalism. We recommend first that the consti-
tution provide that French and English be made
national languages. Second, that the subject matter of
language rights be within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Parliament of Canada. Third, that in the exercise
of its jurisdiction with respect to language rights tne
Parliament of Canada implement bilingualism
gradually through the schools in each province.
Fourth, that the constitution make it clear that the
term “language rights” includes the power to interfere
directly and to trench upon any jurisdiction which a
province may have with respect to education gen-
erally. This recommendation, Mr. Chairman, is in case
the other recommendation on education does not
come to fruition.

Our last recommendation deals with immigration.
This is another area, Mr. Chairman, where it is govem-
ment. policy and I do not believe there is any room for
a constitutional provision here. It is an aspect that we
researched and we thought it was a defect in the
present system and we were somewhat exercised about
it. First that Canada institute a visa system for all
persons entering Canada and that arrangements be
made for the granting of visitors’ visas by immigration
officials which are valid for up to three months at all
points of entry into Canada for persons who are
citizens of the United States or British subjects.
Second, that contact be maintained with those persons
entering Canada as visitors to ensure that they do not
illegally remain in Canada after the expiration of their
visa. Third, that persons who enter Canada as visitors
and who while still in Canada apply for landed
immigrant status be in no better position with respect
to the application than if they had made application
for a landed immigrant visa while resident in their
country of origin. That is the recommendation, Mr.
Chairman, and I will not comment on it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor
Braid. Gentlemen, as these are very broad subjects I
would ask your indulgence in not pursuing all the
details of each one and perhaps restrict yourselves to
general views on each of these questions. The first
questioner will be Mr. Douglas Rowland, representing
Selkirk, whom I introduced earlier.

Mr. Rowland: Mr. Chairman, Inote that the witness
indicated that the second recommendation, which had
to do with Canadian sovereignty, really was a matter
of govemment policy as opposed to constitutional
concern. I would like to ask him if he believes that the
objectives outlined in the second recommendation
with respect to Canadian sovereignty can be accom-
plished effectively with the present division of powers.
I refer to the—if I may use a sort of shorthand—fact
that in the search for investment capital all the
provinces are now in competition due to the fact that
there is no central direction of economic development
in the country, and with the need to seek investment
capital in a competitive market in competition with
other provinces I wonder if an attempt to prevent the
alienation of our resources to other countries is
possible.

Professor Braid: As the present government is aware,
this is exceedingly difficult. We were not so concerned
here with the present concern over the control of
Canadian corporations by American corporations, we
were more concerned with the export of the raw
materials from Canada than the other question, and
this is really what we were directing it to, so we did
not consider the matter. You are not asking for my
personal opinion, you are asking with regard to the
brief.

Mr. Rowland: No. That is fine. Then this does not
refer to the actual ownership of corporations in
Canada but rather to the employment of the re-
sources?

Professor Braid: No. It skirts around it but it does
not come out and say it in so many words, because we
realize the difficulty of buying back and the recent
recommendations that have been made elsewhere on
that.

Mr. Rowland: May I ask your personal opinion, or
the opinion of your group—whichever you feel you are
able to present to us—whether you think the
objective of Canadian control of the Canadian
economy can be accomplished under the present
allocation of responsibilities in the constitution?

Professor Braid: I would not think so. That is my
opinion as a lawyer.

Mr. Rowland: Right. Turning now to your third
recommendation with respect to the Senate. I take it
from this that you envisage quite a different role for
the Senate than now applies, and I wonder if you are
aware of the fact that the present American Senate
developed from this sort of constitutional status and
eventually became 5 directly elected body rather than
an indirectly elected body as you are suggesting here.

Professor Braid: No, we were not aware of the
history of that when we prepared the brief.

Mr. Rowland: With respect to education, once again
I am afraid that perhaps too often for the purpose of
this Committee I tend to look at details. It is a result
of my having been involved in the federal-provincial
meetings on the Constitution. But I take that recom-
mendation as having a fair amount of acceptability to
nine of the Canadian provinces, and it will be totally
dismissed by the tenth, that being Quebec, and
perhaps others. I wonder what your reaction would he
should a recommendation such as this be put forward
and be rejected by only one province.

Would you consider it worthwhile to attempt to
meet some sort of constitutional accommodation so
that the nine provinces desiring it could pursue the
idea and the tenth which did not could have a
different arrangement?

Professor Braid: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On that point
there are various ways to work it. We have here under
education given the right of paramouncy to the federal
government. We suggested this. It may be that the
right of paramouncy ought to be given to the prov-
inces, and that is something, I think, that ought to be
considered, and in that way, if the right of paramouncy
is given to the provinces,’ you can have nine provinces
with one system because they wish to have one
system, and the other province could have its own
way. But we do feel very strongly that there ought to
be a federal jurisdiction in the field of education
generally. We would rather have paramouncy with the
federal government, but it is not something that could
not be reconsidered.

Mr. Rowland: The possibility of different arrange-
ments under a constitution does not hold any terror
for you.

Professor Braid: None whatever.

Mr. Rowland: Nor for me.

Professor Braid: Most constitutions that I know of
provide for this sort of thing anyway. At the request of
various states, they can legislate for those States if
requested.

Mr. Rowland: I think this will be my last question,
Mr. Chairman, so that others may have an oppor-
tunity.

With your fifth section you deal with bilingualism
and biculturalism, and I think that the two briefs
which preceded yours indicate that there may perhaps
be a divergence of opinion between you and the
previous witnesses. I wonder if you would care to
elaborate about the feeling of the Jaycees with respect
to the minority languages in Canada, and what status
they might have.

Professor Braid: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman,
although our Committee did have on it at least one
Ukranian of which I am aware, the matter was not
considered, and so far as the Junior Chamber is
concerned, I could not at this time comment.

Mr. Rowland: Would you consider. . .

Professor Braid: I would think it would be some-
thing for government policy.

Mr. Rowland: You consider it to be something for
govemment policy rather than constitutional action. I
wonder whether you considered your recommen-
dation as outlined here under section five to be in any
way in opposition to the kind of recommendations
made by the Ukrainian Canadian Committee.

Professor Braid: No, not at all, because the
Ukrainian Committee, I do not think, was adamant
about constitutional guarantees. I think they were
concerned with . . .

Mr. Rowland: Not in terms of detail, but in terms of
principle they were, yes.

Professor Braid: That is true, yes. I was thinking of
the Ukrainian press. I think they expressed no
opinion.

Mr. Rowland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chainnan: Mr. Osler, you were quoted by the
witness, so I suspect that you would like to make
some comment.

Mr. Osler: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
ask the witness a little more about education, because
I think it gets right back full circle to the beginning
again. The first two briefs mentioned education as an
example where they were overhelmed by money
matters, and somebody should take it off their backs.
I take it that your brief is aimed more towards some
kind of standardization that would allow people, when
they move around the country, to have a standard of
education guaranteed to their children.

Professor Braid: That is true.

Mr. Osler: So I get back to my question. Who is
responsible? In both cases you have responsibility
going hand in hand with money being spent, because
of the standards that are imposed and the responsi-
bility for the content of the education. Assuming that
the provinces would give it up, would you be content
to have 265 men, which is a pretty small number
compared with the local attention that education now
gets, looking after this? I would be afraid of a gigantic
ministry of education.

Professor Braid: We are not thinking of a monolith.
Not at all. This is why the recommendation was not,
for exclusive power with the Parliament of Canada.
The idea was for a concurrent jurisdiction, with the
actual limits of the concurrent jurisdiction to be
worked out between the centre and the provinces.
What is the responsibility of the centre? What is going
to be the responsiblity of the provinces? What rights
does the centre have? What rights do the provinces
have, and a dividing-up of the thing? We could not
work out all the ramifications of it. It is a dividing-up
of the responsibility for cost.

To some extent the provinces would deal with their
own curriculum on other than basic subjects. We see
that it cannot rest with one or the other. It cannot rest
with the provinces as it is being done now. It is not
fair to the provinces. You have heard the briefs, I
think, of the City of Winnipeg and the Metropolitan
Corporation which were complaining about the great
cost. What we are saying is, provide in the Consti-
tution that both have responsibilities in the field, that
both have rights in the field, and then work out on a
political basis the exact nature of those rights, and
what responsibilities each has. That is all we are
saying. We are not trying to solve the dilemma. It is a
terrific problem.

Mr. Osler: You are pointing out that it is a dilemma
and should be looked at in a constitutional context.

Professor Braid: It should be looked at in the
constitutional context to provide the constitutional
framework for a political solution.

Mr. Osler: With the objective to give equal benefits
to all Canadians in the sphere of education no matter
where they live.

Professor Braid: Precisely.

Mr. Osler: I have a second question. Under heading
number three, the Senate, you speak about each
province electing or appointing its representatives to
the Senate. I would visualize entirely different results
from those two different approaches, to elect or to
appoint. If senators were appointed by the province,
they would be things of the province. If they were
elected by the people of a region, they would be
things of the people of the region. Have you any
opinion as to which you think would be more
desirable?

Professor Braid: We debated this one at length, and
we could not come to a conclusion. Therefore we put
in the “or”. The opinion of the Committee was that
there is much to be said for government appointment
if there are certain safeguards to protect everybody
from the government political party in power making
appointments, like 10 from the same party, because
otherwise it would, we thought, become a political or
partisan contest if there was an election. -Each one has
its own advantages and disadvantages, and we could
not choose at this time. We have not looked into it
enough.

Mr. Osler: Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, if the witness
would not be afraid of a political stalemate if the
senators were things of the province and responsible to
provincial premiers?

The Chairman: Perhaps we can leave that as a
rhetorical question, Mr. Osler, because, as I understand
it, they did not come to any conclusion as an organiza-
tion on that, and several of the members want to ask
further questions. Senator Grosart.

Senator Grosart: Mr. Chainnan, I would like to ask
the witness if in the interest of accuracy and multi-
racialism, he would care to amend the statement that
the English Crown is the titular head with the federal
and provincial governments. This is in the interest of
accuracy and multiracialism.

Professor Braid: The United Kingdom?

Senator Grosart: I am not making the amendment
because . . .

Professor Braid: It probably should have been in
quotation marks, Mr. Chairman, and if you wish to
amend the brief by putting quotation marks around
“English”, we will be happy about it.

Senator Grosart: It does not improve it a bit to put
“English” in quotation marks. It is English, whether it
is in quotation marks or not. It is not the English
Crown.

Professor Braid: No.

Senator Grosart: I am surprised that the witness,
who as I understand is a professor of law, can come
here and tell us that the English Crown is the titular
head of the government.

Professor Braid: I concede the point, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: With respect to the Senate proposals
in your brief, are you suggesting that the entire Senate
be appointed by the provinces, or elected? Or were
you suggesting that a part of the Senate be appointed
by the provinces and part be designated by the federal
government?

Professor Braid: We do not want any federal Parlia-
ment designates. It is suggested that all be provincial
members, either elected or appointed by their own
provinces.

Mr. Allmand: I see. When you say equal representa-
tion, you mean that, for example . . .

Professor Braid: Quebec and Prince Edward Island
have the same.

Mr. Allmand: I see. It was just for clarification.
Thank you.

The Chairman: I believe the last questioner from the
members is the hon. Martial Asselin. Mr. Asselin asked
a question earlier, but I believe that I somehow
overlooked introducing him. He was a member of a
previous government, and he represents the riding of
Charlevoix in the Province of Quebec. Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a
question regarding the first resolution about the
monarchy. I think if you have a group of young
people, let us say from 20 to 40 years old, I wonder if
your group has ever made any study regarding the
establishment under a new constitution of a presi-
dential system for Canada. Did you make any study of
that in this question?

Professor Braid: We discussed that one at length.
There were many problems. What are we going to do
with our Lieutenant Governor and our Governor
General? Are they going to continue the same with
different titles? Are we going to have a president?
Are we going to have a governor? What is the
situation? How do we deal with various aspects when
we take away the Crown as the head of all things? We
considered that, and we think that is something to be
worked out. If the dicision is made, something will
surely fit in to fill its place, and it takes more than a
few meetings of our organization, I am afraid to come
up with some answer on this. We did consider it, and
each of the alternatives have their own defects. It can
be worked out. It is not an impossible thing.

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, in the light of the fact
that the organization has not really gone any further
on this, do you really feel that you want to press your
supplementary questions? Have you finished, sir?

Mr. Asselin: Yes.

Mr. Allmand: I am, backing the Senate.

The Chairman: You are backing the Senate. All
right. I now recognize Mr. Douglas Hogarth, repre-
senting the riding of New Westminster in British
Columbia.

Mr. Hogarth: In view of the fact that the federal
government consists of two separate institutions, the
Senate and the House of Commons endowed with the
responsibility of carrying out the federal powers and
federal responsibility, and that the constitution of the
country in a federal state, in any federal state, divides
power between the federal government, the central
gouvernment, and the provinces, why is it that in
Section 3 of your brief you suggest that the provinces
should have a meaningful role in the Senate of the
central government, but you do not suggest that the
central government should have a meaningtul role in
the exercise of the powers of the province?

Professor Braid: Turn about is fair play.

Mr. Hogarth: Which would help us considerably.

Professor Braid: I do not know whether your
question is facetious or . . .

Mr. Hogarth: Hardly.
Professor Braid: The Senate represents the people.

Mr. Hogarth: I hope the House of Commons does
too.

Professor Braid: Are you suggesting that the House
of Commons ought to appoint someone to its own
federal body?

Mr. Hogarth: I am only concerned with the repre-
sentation at the provinces. The provinces should have
a participation. The provincial government should
have a participation in the exercise of the central
govemment’s function. But you do not suggest that
the central government should have any participation
in the provincial govemment’s function, though.

Professor Braid: Only through the redistribution of
powers and perhaps giving the doctrine of paramouncy
more effect than it now has. We would give the federal
government more powers. We suggested that, for
example, in education. We mentioned in our preamble
that we did not have time to consider in toto such
matters as concurrent jurisdiction in medical care,
welfare, putting teeth back into the federal trade and
commerce power, exclusive jurisdiction over all
aspects of communications, which would include
computers, the redefinition of external affairs power to
give paramouncy to the federal government to stop
this worrying about treaties and cultural exchanges
and things like that, matters whereby we can imple-
ment treaties such as international labour agreements
and such matters as that, and exportation of natural
resources. These are things you look at, and I think
here is where the federal government will have its
interest looked after by having the power in the
constitution to do things.

The federal government, as I see it, is still the House
of Commons. It is the body which is elected by the
people; it is the democratic body. We are not saying
that the Senate ought to have a power of veto over the
House of Commons, that it ought to usurp the
function of the House of Commons. That is not what
we are saying. All we are saying here is that there
ought to be some place where regional interests and
where provincial interests, as they are now, ought to
be fairly represented on matters which are of concern
to the provinces, such as equal opportunity in educa-
tion and incentive grants to industry. There is an
article in the paper tonight . . .

Mr. Hogarth: I grant you all that, but why would
you not at the same time advocate that the federal
government have a like influence on the exercise of
provincial power, other than the power of dis-
allowance which now exists?

Professor Braid: I do not think it is necessary.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?
Mr. Gibson.

Mr. Gibson: Number 1 under “The Senate” reads:
“That the Senate be restructured so as to give each
province equal voice in its affairs.” As I understand it,
the Senate is now divided into regions, the four great
regions and Newfoundland, and it is giving equal voice
to the provincial interests. But if, for instance, Ontario
with a population of about one third of Canada, which
now has about one quarter strength in the Senate,
were to—what you mean is this, that each province
would have the same number of senators. I would say
that is hardly a fair distribution of representation by
population. In other words, if you had 24 senators
from Prince Edward Island, I do not think it is just
that a province of 100,000 people should have the
same number of senators as a province with 6 million
people. I do not know whether that is what you meant
in the way that is worded. Ido not see that restructu-
ring in a regional sense would be of any value.

Professor Braid: To Ontario.

Mr. Gibson: Ontario now does not have representa-
tion in the Senate in proportion to the number of
people in the province. But I think it is a fair
distribution as it stands. Yes, six million is quite close
to one third of the people in the country, and
Ontario has a very small voice in proportion to its
population. If you gave each province the same
number of Senate seats, I submit that this would not
be a fair thing, that-the two or three small provinces
could gang up on a big province, and with a small
population control many important national policies
to the detriment of Ontario and the Canadian people.

Mr. Osler: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if it is entirely
fair for Western Canada to be represented in the
Senate by one region when the Maritimes, which is
much smaller, is represented by two? There are many
inequities. I think Ontario does all right.

The Chairman: Perhaps Professor Braid would care
to make a comment on both of those, or maybe they
cancel each other out.

Professor Braid: The place where there is representa-
tion by population is the place where the action is, in
the House of ‘Commons, and you have it there. The
Senate, a redefinition of powers. Perhaps it will not
Commons, and we see a redefinition of the role of the
Senate, a redefinition of powers. Perhaps it will not
even have the check on the House of Commons that it
now exercises. We do not know what will happen. The
point is that truly provincial interests ought to have
some place where they can be heard with equal voice.
If you set up an American-type senate here, our
Committee says, no, it cannot work there. If you give
the Senate all the powers of the American Senate, it
would be most unfair to Ontario. It would be most
unfair to Quebec and to all the others. This is not
what we have advocated.

The Chairman: Mr. Leonard Hopkins.

Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I think we are missing
a very important point here in debating this matter. I
am referring to the fact that the national caucuses of
political parties today in the House of Commons
divide themselves, are in fact divided up into regions,
and meet as regional or provincial caucuses. I think
this is where your direct regional representation come
out. I would like to assure the witness, although I do
not know what his concept of this is exactly, that in
our caucus the members from Western Canada cer-
tainly stick up for their region. And this was the
original idea of the Senate.

One thing that really bothers me here is what
we are going to do if we have provincially-appointed
or elected senators that end up being in direct
conflict with the House of Commons. We are going
to be into another constitution hassle. I believe it
was in 1916 that the United States did away with
State appointment of senators and started electing
them. This is a very serious thing. If you ended
up with a senate that was in direct conflict with
the House of Commons where does this place the
Crown and the supremacy of the House of Commons
in our parliamentary system? You want it similar to
the system that we presently have in Great Britain but
if you are going to take power away from the House
of Commons or create this type of conflict then you
are in fact going to end up with a different system.

Professor Braid: I understand caucuses meet in
secret and I assume our interests are being protected in
secret. There is an old legal rubric, “Justice must not
only be done but must manifestly seem to be done.” I
do not think it is in this case. I think I answered your
second point when I answered the gentleman to your
right’s question.

Mr. Osler: Mr. Chairman, the idea of regional repre-
sentation in the Senate is not under dispute on either
side. The unfortunate word “province” here is the
stumbling block. If senators somehow or other repre-
sent provinces rather than regions, they then become
the thing of the provincial politician who puts them in
and then you could have hell to pay, and you could
have a constitutional block of the type that Len
Hopkins is talking about. If somehow or other they
are either appointed or elected to represent regions
completely and divorced from the provincial political
senate, then it is quite a different thing.

Professor Braid: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should
have commented on the question—maybe it was
different. Our submission it not that the Senate
remain the same, which has the power of veto over the
House of Commons—not at all—but that it be restruc-
tured in such a way as to give it certain rights and a
certain role to play independent of the House of
Commons.

The Chairman: I would call now on Mr. Georges
Lachance representing the riding of Lafontaine in the
Province of Quebec.

Mr. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, my question may not
be very popular with our colleagues in the Senate. Has
your group considered the possibility of abolishing the
Senate and replacing it by another body that would
give to the province that type of participation?

Professor Braid: That is exactly what we have
suggested. You can call it anything you want, but we
continue to call it the Senate. You could call it the
provincial body or whatever you want. But this is
what we suggest: Take the Senate as it is now and say,
“All right, we are going to abolish it whhen we find
out what the new ball game is about”. Then you
restructure the thing. You abolish it and define its new
role. We say to give it equal provincial representation.
We did not define the role precisely. We mentioned
incentive grants administering these things and other
powers but I think there is general dissastisfaction, at
least in our organization, with the Senate as it is now
constituted, not the Senators, the Senate.

Mr. Lachance: As you know, our Parliament is
bicameral and the Senate has a very important role to
play. Would you give that new body the same type of
legislative power that the Senate has right now, or
would you take all legislative power from that new
body.

Professor Braid: We probably would take all the
legislative power away and give it back some. It would
be a complete redfinition of the Senate. This is what
we see. We do not see the Senate in its traditional role
of having to pass all the legislation that is passed in the
House of Commons, which gives it a power of
blocking. We do not see that at all. I do not think it is
fair to Ontario. You know, even the majority has
certain rights, and here Ontario has the right. So you
cannot set up the Senate on an equal representation
basis without redefining the Senate itself—it is im-
possible.

The Chairman: I suspect that Senator Allister
Grosart would like to comment at this point.

Senator Grosart: Mr. Chairman, as it has for the last
103 years, if I may presume to speak for the Senate,
the Senate rests its case.

The Chairman: Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: Did your group consider the new
powers suggested for the Senate in the government’s
proposals, which would be to give the Senate powers
to approve or disapprove of nominations to the
Supreme Court, ambassadors, heads of cultural
agencies and things relating to languages and human
rights.

Professor Braid: These are the things that we are
thinking about but without reference to that
document. We did not consider the document, which
is the answer to your question.

The Chairman: Are there at this point any
comments from the floor.

Mr. Bernard: Yes.

The Chairman: This is Mr. Bernard again, I take it.

Mr. Bernard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

May I speak to the question of representation and
try to glean from these comments again a principle of
representation at the federal level? I do not think the
witness really touched it from that point of view. It
sounded to me to be just from the point of view of the
validity of the Senate. I think really if we rewrite the
Constitution, and again I say that we should, and we
do so with the presupposition of a federal system then
we have to have representation other than by popu-
lation. Over and above population we need repre-
sentation of the various federal areas. And here I do
not mean regional, I mean provincial. I think that is
the point.

Now whether you are going to put that into the
Senate or whether you are going to put that right into
the House of Commons in a unicameral system I do
not think is really important. That is your problem to
work out. I think the principle here is if we are going
to recognize the federal system as a system of uniting
unequal parts and granting them equality, uniting
different parts and recognizing their differences, you
then have to have representation other than by popu-
lation. I know Ontario fears this. I think the member
over there showed that. They are very hesitant at this
kind of thing. I just have to say that Upper Canada
does not really appreciate the development that the
whole of the country has gone through in the last 100
years. Perhaps it is too much to presuppose the federal
system, but I would say though that that is the
presupposition.

If I may speak to another question referred by the
witness, it seems you desire some kind of uniform
education system throughout the country. Am I read-
ing too much into your remarks?

Professor Braid: Some kind of uniform education
system—not “system” but “curriculum”.

Mr. Bernard: I found your language limping some-
what, and I speak here as a professional educator. I
find some of the language you used—I am not sure
whether it was deliberately or not—a little offensive in
terms of education. I am not sure a uniform education
system is what education is about. I am not sure you
can speak in terms of basic subjects or things like that.
That is why I do not think the whole question of
differences is really important in education in tenns of
it being harmful. I think it is very beneficial. I think
the system we have now of provincial jurisdiction in
education is very important, and I think I might
hesitate to go right over to what I hear you saying.

Professor Braid: I acknowledge there are problems.
However, what we are more concerned with is that if
somebody in Grade 11 in Prince Edward Island
moves into a school in Alberta that person will not be
taking Grade 12 subjects in that school. To that extent
we would like uniformity. This is what we are getting
at.

Mr. Bernard: Yes, but I would say that your very
example is a non-educational example and is harmful
to education. Throughout this evening all the briefs
spoke-of education in terms of politics, in terms of
changing provinces, in terms of money, but not in
terms of education. I would really ask the members of
the Committee to hold back your judgment on those
kinds of questions. I do not think that should find its
way in Constitution. If Constitution is going to deal
with education it seems to me it is in terms of rights,
and the implementation then becomes something else.
I would just offer that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bernard.
Are there any further comments.

Mr. Hogarth: I would like to make an observation.
Mr. -Bemard raised the question with this witness
about representation by population and representa-
tion by region. I understand the Senate was originally
established to overcome the problem arising out of the
difference between representation by population and
representation by region. I was wondering if anybody
ever has given consideration to having those two
concept in one legislative assembly—that is to say, that
the House of Commons as it is now constituted would
have members, appointed and elected or” elected in
each case, that sat together. Could our counsel
possibly explore that at some time and let us know if
it ever has been considered.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any further
comments from the floor.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have been most patient. I
think this has been a very successful first public
meeting for the Committee. Perhaps I am not the best
one to say that. As Chairman, I am sitting here
somewhat impartially. You have turned out in
considerable numbers to participate, and you have
participated well. I think the briefs have been ex-
tremely good ones, they presented excellent points
for us to consider, and I would like to thank all the
witnesses for this evening, in particular, since I have
not yet thanked him, Professor Braid for his fine
presentation.

The Committee is adjourned until tomorrow mor-
ning at 10.00 a.m.

APPENDIX “I”

BRIEF
submitted to

The Special Joint Committee of the
Senate and House of Commons on the

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
by
UKRAINIAN CANADIAN COMMITTEE

Introduction

Ukrainian Canadian Committee is a co-ordinating
body representing an overwhelming majority of
Canadians of Ukrainian descent. It was organized
thirty years ago to represent the common interests of
Ukrainian Canadians. In this brief, it is the intention
of the Committee to confine itself to issues and
problems which affect Ukrainian Canadians culturally,
ethnically and linguistically.

Concept of Canadian History.

It is impossible for Ukrainian Canadian Committee
to accept the concept of “two founding races”. It is
impossible to find anywhere in any documents that
Canada was fonned as a result of an understanding and
decision reached by “two founding races” to form one
Canada. The pertinent sections of British North
America Act read as follows:

(5) Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces,
named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick.

(6) The Parts of the Province of Canada (as it
exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly
constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper
Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be
severed, and shall form Two separate Provinces.
The Part which formerly constituted the Province
of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of
Ontario, and the Part which formerly constituted
the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the
Province of Quebec.

(7) The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Bruns-
wick shall have the same Limits as at the passing of
this Act.

During the debates in the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of Canada the following was stated:

“I propose the adoption of the rainbow as our
emblem. By the endless variety of its tints the
rainbow will give an excellent idea of the diversity
of races, religions, sentiments and interests of the
different parts of the Confederation. By its slender
and elongated form the rainbow would afford a
perfect representation of the geographical confi-
guration of the Confederation.” Henry Joly de
Lotbiniere, Debated in the Legislative Assembly of
Canada, Quebec, 20th February, 1865.

The views expressed in the above citation show the
thinking of some of the members of the Legislative
Assembly at the time, 1865, as to what Canada was
going to be like. There is not the slightest hint that
Canada was to be “Bilingual and Bicultural” nation.
On the contrary Canada was visualized as a multi-
lingual and multicultural nation. It also admits that
there will be a “diversity of races, religions, senti-
ments and interest of the different parts of the
Confederation.” Recognizing these diversities it is no
wonder that French language was recognized in and
for the Province of Quebec. Similarly it could be
reasonable to assume that consideration should be
given to “sentiments and interest” of “all” Canadians.

Furthermore, France showed no interest in Canada
whatever. Great Britain was concerned how to divest
itself of this liability. With the signing of Treaty of
Washington on May 8, 1871, the differences arising
from American Civil War were settled between United
States and Great Britain. Sir John A. Macdonald who
was one of the five commissioners wrote:

“Having made up my mind that the Americans
wanted everything, and wfll give us nothing in
exchange, one of my chief aims now is to convince
the British Commissioners of the unreasonableness
of the Yankees. I am greatly disappointed at the
course of action taken by the British Commis-
sioners. They seem to have only one thing in their
minds—that it, to go to England with a Treaty in
their pockets—no matter at what cost to Canada.”

Life of Sir John A. Macdonald
by Joseph Pope, V.2, p. 105.

In 1867, United States purchased Alaska from Rus-
sia for the sum of $7,000,000. One of the senators
stated that it was the beginning of the purchases.
Rupert’s Land, Prairie Provinces, was later available
for purchase from Hudson’s Bay Company for
£325,000. The Canadian Government became con-
cerned. It was, therefore, confronted with two pro-
blems, the building of transcontinental railway and
settlement. In March, 1891, Edward Baake visited the
West. He described it as, “empty West, empty still.”

Development of Immigration Policy

During de debate on acquisition of Rupert’s Land
and North-Westem Territory, Sir John A. Macdonald
thus addressed the House:

“. . . It has consequently always been the political
cry in Western Canada that this country must be
obtained. . . . There is no use in saying that we
have enough land already. . . . If offered to the
United States—the recent purchasers of a tract of
ice adoining—can we doubt that they would con-
sent to pay for it an amount equal to the whole
debt of Canada four times over? It was but the
absorbing interest of the late internicine war that
prevented the country from having been overrun
already.”

Memoirs of Sir John A. Macdonald by Sir Joseph
Pope, The Musson Book Company Ltd., Toronto,
p. 398-399.

When Sir Clifford Sifton became the Minister of the
Interior he immediately set about formulating immi-
gration policy.

“Clifford Sifton took to Ottawa a clear idea of
what, in his opinion, ought to be done if Canada
was to escape from the doldrums in which the
country had, for years, been becalmed. The first
thing to do was to settle the empty West with
producing farmers; this was also the second, third,
fourth and fifth thing to do. Solve the problem of
how to get people of the right kind into the West
and keep them there, and the problem of national
development was also solved; if the West remained
empty every expedient to restore prosperity would
be futile.”

Clifford Sifton in Relation to His Times, John W.
Dafoe, The Macmillan Book Company of Canada
Limited, 1931, p. 131.

The policy adopted is described in the following
passage:

“Settle! . That was the keyword of the whole
programme. If a man would settle on the land and
seriously devote himself to the business of produc-
tion, the whole Department of Interior, from the
Minister down to the youngest office boy, was at
his service. If he was white man, in both senses of
the word, he could come from anywhere in the
world and he was made welcome, and put to work
with no questions asked as to his race, his religion,
his language or previous conditions of servi-
tude. . . But under the new regime John Doe was a
human being and a valued customer; and in the
practices of the department there was an approxi-
mation to the retain business philosophy that the
customer is always right.”

Ibid, p. 136.

Despite the liberal immigration policy of Canada it
fafled to attract settlers. The Western European go-
vernments did not want to see their citizens emigrating
to Canada. Their countries were being industrialized.

“Every emigrant who was induced to leave Ger-
many, Austria, or Russia was so induced by an
evasion of the emigration laws prevailing in such
countries, and he could, generally speaking be
secured in no other way.”

The Life of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, Beck-
les Wilson, Cassell and Company Limited, 1915,
p. 489.

“In France we have been getting more emigrants
during the last two or three years, but by the laws
and regulations in force, emigration is not allowed
excepting by vessels sailing from French ports.
Therefore in the past, except occasionally, when
vessels have left France direct to Canada, our
chances of getting emigrants has been compara-
tively small.”
Ibid, p. 492.

“With reference to the obstacles put in the way of
emigration to Canada, I have many proofs that the
Austrian Government, by often declining passports
to intending immigrants, hinder them from leaving
the country. In addition, the German lines have
given guarantee to the Russian Government for all
passengers from Austria and Russia. This hinders
the passage of such people across the frontiers and
through Prussia.”

Ibid, p. 493.

Neither was emigration to Canada favoured in Great
Britain. In June, 1899, Lord Strathcona wrote to Mr.
Chamberlain:

“They say that we are draining Great Britain of
her best blood in order to build up and strengthen
the Colonies. But I venture to express my convic-
tion that the strength of the colonies is Great
Britain’s strength, and that if ever the need should
arise these same yound men will return with their
patriotism increased and invigorated, rather than
weakened, to give their help to the Mother
Country.”

Ibid., p. 506

In the United States the Canadian Government adver-
tised for settlers and by 1902 advertisements were
appearing regularly in some 7,000 agricultural papers
with an aggregate circulation of 7,000,000. The results
were disappointing.

The immigration of Ukrainians to Canada antedated
Sifton’s position as Minister of Department of In-
terior. However, Mr. Sifton was convinced that these
people would make desirable settlers for Western
Canada, and his agents were after. He said, “I think a
stalwart peasant in sheepskin coat, born on the soil,
whose forefathers have farmed for ten generations,
with a stout wife and a half-dozen children, is good
quality.” Despite the restriction placed by the Aus-
trian Government every effort was made to induce
Ukrainians to emigrate to Canada.

Here is how the scheme was operated as explained
by Lord Strathcona:

“All agents claim that they have been active in
organizing the movement from Galicia. They say
that they have obtained from the people who have
already emigrated, and in other ways an immense
number of addresses in the country, and that they
have been in correspondence with these people for
months past, sending them letters pamphlets. They
have agents working for them surreptitiously.

Of course the law will not permit anything in the
direction of directly encouraging emigration, and
these sub-agents are generally peddlars, hawkers
and others, who are going about the country and
in that way disseminate quietly but effectively
quantities of literature. They have also spent consi-
derable sums in advertising, such as law permits.
Although it is quite possible they may exaggerate
their efforts and their expenditure, there is no
doubt in my mind that they have been spending
both time and money in the endeavour to increase
the business from Galicia.

At the same time, it is only right for me to add
that they all appear to have been in communi-
cation with professor Oleskow, and to have
pecuniary consideration in the event of him work-
ing through their particular agencies. Of course,
none of them know of our arrangement with him,
but in any case, in order to retain their business,
they would not hesitate to minimize his efforts.”

The Life of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal,
Beckles Willson Cassell and Company Limited, p:
496-497

Professor Oleskow visited Canada and when he
returned to Galicia became a subsidized agent for the
Canadian Government. He warned the prospective
emigrants of the hardships they will have to face in
Canada. On the other hand the other agents aquired
by the Canadian High Commissioner in London and
steamship lines presented Canada to the people as land
“flowing with milk and honey” but failed to tell them
to bring the cows and bees with them. This created
many heart breaks which could have been avoided.

The following is a translation of a letter from a
Ukrainian settler in Canada, published in a journal in
Iviv, Galicia:

“Those will not be forgiven through whom I sold my
property, left my ancestral land and landed in
Canadian abyss. I, former landowner, intended to send
my children to gymnasia so that they would become
educated and loyal sons of Ukraine. But due to the
persuasions of the agents I brought them to cold
Canada where they have to work very hard while,
they, the agents live comfortably in Galicia.”

It must not be overlooked that North Atlantic
Trading Company was paid $5. per head of the family
and $2. for each additional member of the family.

Despite the hardships and misrepresentations the
settlers prospered:

“The Ukrainian first arrives in the country with
about as few wordly possessions as when he first
arrived on this planet, but poverty combined —as in his
case it generally is—with industry as well as patience is
no serious drawback. The man of the family puts up a
house, or hovel, if you like to call it so, installs his
wife and children, and then goes off to work, probably
is a navvy on a railway line. During his absence his wi-
fe and such of his children as are not mere infants set
to work the farm. Having neither horse, ox or plough
they do the best they can with the humble spade, and
raise a little crop of rye, cats or potatoes. The frugal
father returns in the fall of the year with every cent he
has been able to save out of his earnings, and the ox
and plough that he is thus able to buy means a vast
increase in cultivation and production in the second
year. Many a Ukrainian farmer to-day has from 20 to
200 acres under crop, and from 10 to 100 head of
livestock. They may be miles from any town or
railway station, but-the Ukrainian does not say it is no”
use to grow grain for sale. In winter he loads his
procuce on a rough sleigh, and sets out for the nearest
market, no matter what the distance may be. At night
he saves hotel or “stopping Place” charges by sleeping
on the snow beside this sleigh. I have heard of men
who thought nothing of a fortnight’s journey under
these conditions. It can easily be imagined that in
three or four years such man is poor no longer.”

“New Canada & New Canadian, Kennedy, 1907,
p. 126-127.

It is evident that the Ukrainian settlers were pre-
pared to work hard in order to succeed. Frequently
they were referred to as the “men in sheepskin” coats.
However, their level of education reflected the level of
education as it existed at that time in Galicia (Western
Ukraine which was part of Austria-Hungary). Even if
some of them were illiterate this does not mean that
they were not intelligent. They appreciated the free-
dom afforded them in Canada.

The Ukrainian settlers made their contribution to
the development of Canada. They not only cleared the
land and tilled the soil but they also found the time
and the means to provide for their cultural and
spiritual life. Just as fast as the land was brought under
cultivation the settlements were dotted with Ukrainian
churches for worship and community halls were built
for cultural enjoyment. Discussion meetings, amateur
theatres, choirs and libraries were extablished. Resi-
dential institutes in cities like Winnipeg, Saskatoon
and Edmonton was established for students who were
attending high schools and universities. The concern
was education both cultural and how to earn a living.
Ukrainian culture was thus becoming the culture of
those parts of Canada where the Ukrainians were
setteld. There is no justification to the claim that the
communities settled by Ukrainians or any other ethnic
groups should be compelled to accept Anglo-Saxon or
French culture as their native culture.

In serving their country, Canada, they were not
found wanting. During the First World War they
enlisted in thousands. Filip Konowal was awarded the
Victoria Cross. Dr. J . T. M. Anderson, Inspector of
Schools and later Premier of Saskatchewan writes:

“In Northern Alberta, of two battalions recruited
and now fighting overseas contained eighty per cent of
Ukrainians and the other sixty-five per cent, all of
whom, or their fathers, were born in Galicia, in
Austria. The former of these battalions was known as
“The Irish Guards”

The Education of the New Canadian, J. T. M.
Anderson, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., Toronto, 1918.
P. 61

During the Second World War over 40,000 Canadians
of Ukrainian descent served in Canadian armed forces.

Cultural, Educational and Linguistic Concerns:
Dr. J . T. M. Anderson has this to say:

“Shudder as we Anglo-Saxons may at the thought
of it, our descendents are more likely to marry
poles, or Bohemians or Ukrainians or Russians, as
we now call them. We must assume a different
attitude on this question. The superintendent of a
city school recently refused to engage a teacher
who was an honor graduate in English and History,
and thoroughly qualified, “because he had a
foreign name, and the parents might not like it. It
would be useless for a Yaremovitch, a Bojarski, a
Basarabowicz, or a Niemczuk to apply for the
majority of the schools in English speaking dis-
tricts, no matter how excellent their qualifications
might be; and yet the people of these same
English-speaking districts will spend hours and
days and weeks worrying about racial assimila-
tion.”

Ibid, p. 158.

It must be admitted that much has been done to
eradicate discrimination but with passing the Official
Languages Act and inventing the “founding races”
concept it would seem that the pendulum of discrimi-
nation is beginning to swing in the wrong direction.

Perhaps we should accept a concept of a Canadian as
expressed by Prof. W. L. Morton:

“Canada is united at the top by allegiance. Because
Canada is a nation founded on allegiance and not
on compact, there is no process in becoming
Canadian akin to conversion, there is no pressure
for uniformity, there is no Canadian way of life.
Anyone French, Irish, Ukrainian or Eskimo, can
be a subject of the Queen and a citizen of Canada
without in any way changing or ceasing to be
himself. This is a truth so fundamental that it is
little realized and many, if not most Canadians
would deny its truth, but it is central to any
explanation or understanding of Canadian
nationhood.”

The Canadian Identity, W. L. Morton, (1961)
The University of Toronto Press, University of
Toronto, Toronto, . . . . p. 85.

In the Canadian Constitution there must be defini-
tion of Canadian citizen. It must clearly define that
there are two languages of communication in Canada
between the Federal Government and its citizens but
there are other languages recognized as Canadian
because they are used by Canadian Citizens. How does
one explain the fact that Canadian citizen, a third or
fourth generation Canadian, uses a language as his
mother tongue which is neither English or French. It is
a foreign language or is he a second rate Canadian
Citizen. A further clarification of the problem—in the
Winnipeg Tribune, Wednesday, September 9, 1970,
there is an article on editorial page written by Val
Werier, “An Unusual retreat near the city”. It states:

“They have excellent facilities with grills oven and
stoves and water, and tables. By the picnic sites we
have many foreigh tongues. Immigrants love the
parks . . . .”

Is any language not English or French a foreign
tongue and anoyone using a “foreigh tongue”, imme-
diately to inlisted as “immigrant”. There must be a
place in the Canadian Constitution or an amended
British North American Act that Canadian citizens
who use other languages than English and French in
personal conversation as well as consider them as their
mother language, not be considered as immigrants or
foreigners.

There is active discussion and serious consideration
to a Canadian Charter of Human Rights. This should
be an improvement over the present “Canadian Bill of
Rights.” The Canadian Bill of Rights sets out to define
the freedoms which every Canadian is entitled to
enjoy. However, it omits “cultural Freedom”.

With the development of modern technology,
transportation, communication and mass media the
individual, particularly minorities, may be prevented
from enjoying their cultural heritages. The schools
have become factories in their size and cater to
majority, the radio and television cater exclusively to
majority the newspaper and magazines equally rely on
volume subscription. These have a tendency to deprive
a minority in a given area of cultural benefits. This is
of particular concern where radio and television is
concerned when sponsered or subsidized by the
Government of Canada. If we truly respect the dignity
of the “human being” we must take into consideration
his cultural background. There should be an oppor-
tunity for him or her to maintain and preserve his
culture rather than be submerged by the majority
culture with the hope that he will assimilate. Both
radio and television are not only informative but also
entertaining media. Yet the concern is only about the
English and the French. No consideration is given to
other ethnic groups. It must be stated unequivocally in
the Canadian Charter of Human Rights that all Cana-
dians have an inalienable right to preserve and propa-
gate their culture. Where documentary, informative or
entertaining media are subsidized by the Government
of Canada due consideration must be given to subsi-
dize other cultures besides English and French. This
equally applies to the preservation of languages. This
must be an inalienable right. It is compatible with the
principle of the dignity of human beings.

The Official Languages Act must be treated as an
Act recognizing “The English and French languages
are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of
the Parliament and Government of Canada, and
possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights
and privileges as to their uses in all institutions of the
Parliament and Government of Canada.” The other
languages, other ‘than English and French have a right
to preservation and propagation. The Official Lan-
guages Act must not be used to propagate English or
French culture. Mr. Duhamel, Chairman of advisory
board dealing with Official Languages Act, stated that
“What has surprised Mr. Duhamel is the will of the
French-language groups across the country to maintain
their culture and language even though it may be only
half-remembered.”

“We’re a little late” Mr. Duhamel adds. “Maybe
we should have had this kind of thing 50 years
ago . . . But now that we’ve started, we’re finding
that people are seeking help to reinvigorate their
cultural life.”

Winnipeg Free Press, Wednesday, September 2, 1970.

It must be noted that Mr. Duhamel states unequivo-
cally that the Official Languages Act will “reinvigorate
their cultural life.” Even where there is 10 per cent of
population of either French or English the Act will
tend to reinvigorate the culture. In these bilingual
districts the non-English and non-French Canadians
will suffer. There will be no assistance to reinvigorate
their cultures. There is no doubt that in time these
bilingual districts will become unilingual districts. This
is the attitude expressed in Vol. IV The Cultural
Contributions of the Other Ethnic Groups, Report of
the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultural-
ism. The other ethnic groups will join either the
Anglophones or Francophones. If there are to be
bilingual districts then the per centage should be not
less that 35 per cent.

Civil Rights:

Sec. 93 (13) of British North America Act States:

Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

If Canada is to remain a united and one nation “Civil
Rights” must become the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Government of Canada. Although the Govermnent of
Canada has the power to disallow any legislation
passed by the provincial government yet the govern-
ment of Canada is reluctant to do so for political
reasons. A case in point is the Manitoba School
Question. Without taking sides in the issue, when the
judgement was handed down by the Privy Council in
Brophy v. Manitoba, 1895, A.C. 202 the decision was,
“that the Governor-General in Council has power to
make remedial orders in the premises within the scope
of sub. sect. 3 of sec 22—e.g., by supplemental rather
than repealing the legislation. “The Government of Ca-
nada failed to act and the issue is still unresolved in
Manitoba. It has failed to “go away” with time. But
where the province acted or passed ultra vires legisla-
tions, trenching on the powers of the Govermnent of
Canada, immediate action was taken, i.e. “Attorney-
General for Alberta v. Canada, 1947 A.C. 503.
(Alberta Bill of Rights Act).The provinces are working
for uniformity of legislation. Civil rights is much to
important to be left to individual provinces. It must
become an all Canadian responsibility.

Recommendations:

(1) In Canadian Constitution there must be a clause
defining that mother language of a Canadian citizen
may be any one of the languages of the world and that
such languages are Canadian languages. The same
applies to culture.

(2) Canadian Charter of Human Rights must recog-
nize the dignity of human beings including the rights
to cultural freedom and language and their develop-
ment.

(3) Official Languages Act, Sec .13 sub, sec. (2)(b)
should be changed that the minority for establishment
of bilingual districts should be 35 per cent instead of
the present 10 per cent.

(4) All cultures if subsidized by the Government of
Canada or other levels of governments must be subsidi-
zed in proportion to population. A proportion of
monies made available for Official Languages must be
made available for other languages.

APPENDIX “J ”
BRIEF
submitted to

The Special Joint Committee of the
Senate and House of Commons on the

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
by
CANADA PRESS CLUB

The Canada Press Club of Winnipeg was organized in
1942, when the editors and publishers of the ethnic
newspapers and periodicals in Winnipeg gathered “to
study the way in which they could most effectively
apply themselves to the immediate task of contribut-
ing to the War effort”.

Since the termination of hostilities in 1945 and with
the arrival of thousands of New Canadians, the 26
member publications of the Canada Press Club, have
together accepted the responsibility of presenting and
interpreting the Canadian Scene to its readers, as well
as to gather and disseminate information which will
lead to a better appreciation of the basic principles to
which Canada is dedicated.

The Canada Press Club of Winnipeg is the only
organization in this area with over 12 different ethnic
groups represented in the common cause of dedication
to fostering a better understanding of Canada amongst
its peoples. It has succeeded in this regard where
other similar organizations, in purpose, have failed.

The ethnic press has a significant position amongst
Canadian news media. Significant, in that all its mem-
ber publications do serve this special market with a
patronage and understanding which only they indivi-
dually are able to interpret to their respective ethnic
groups. In almost 80 years of integration of hundreds
of thousands of New Canadians into the fabric of the
Canadian society and economy, this process has been
facilitated and shortened to a great extent, by the
conscientious efforts of the ethnic press. By publishing
infonnation about Canada and news of their respective
societies, etc., the ethnic newspapers contribute
greatly to a better understanding and appreciation of
Canada.

Our respective Governments both Federally and
Provincially as well as municipally, have long recog-
nized the functions and importance of the ethnic
newspapers. Unfortunately, when it comes to the
matter of placing their respective Govemment’s adver-
tising, the ethnic press is often overlooked. The ques-
tion of media selection etc., is left almost wholly with
the respective Department’s Advertising Agencies. In
many cases the ethnic newspapers are let-down. Not
all but a good number of these Advertising Agencies
prefer to use the more expensive mass media of
television and dailies, etc. As a result it is not too
infrequent to find the ethnic newspapers overlooked
in various Government advertising essential to all
Canadians.

The ethnic groups of Canada have at all times freely
andreadily adjusted their own cultures to their duties
to the land that had become their new homeland.
Without hesitation they have admitted that the build-
ing of a united Canada, the moulding of a Canadian
pattern of the democratic way of life, was paramount.

As the ethnic groups have to make an immediate and
to some extent a greater adjustment than the founding
peoples it was essential that there be a reasonable
uniformity in that adjustment. Otherwise confusion
and disunity might develop.

No one in the ethnic groups is in a better position to
take the lead in developing a uniformity of approach
than the editors and publishers of the ethnic weekly and
other publications. It could plainly be seen that it was
ahnost imperative that the editors and publishers form
an association of some kind where they would get an
opportunity to know one another, compare view-
points and seek to harmonize them. Only then could
they properly qualify for that leadership.

The objective and constant aim of the Canada Press
Club has been to emphasize the adjustment the ethnic
groups have to make to fit undoubted values in their
cultures to the All-Canada culture that is being
moulded.

The willingness of the ethnic groups to make this
adjustment does not make them second class citizens.
Far from it. It actually makes it easier for them to
develop the needed All-Canada approach—perhaps
easier than it is to the two founding groups, the one
because of a mother-country complex. the other be-
cause of a duty felt to fill a gap caused by their
abandonment by the country of origin.

There are no second class citizens in Canada, but
duties towards cultures which the ethnic groups
brought with them must be secondary to their duties
in the new homeland, national and international.

This training in adjustment is excellent not only for
the ethnics but for all Canadians. Every individual
citizen, every group, every Province in Canada, must
learn to adjust their claims and their aspirations, no
matter how worthy, and make them secondary to
their duties towards Canada and her great potential as
a nation. This is particularly necessary in these years
of internal stress and strain.

One can widen the horizon. It is a training which
every nation needs because of local wars and threats of
wars which keep the world in a constant state of
brinkmanship. Nations, no matter how powerful,
must, in the world scene, make their aspirations
secondary to a much needed duty to a world huma-
nity.

The training and the adjustments which the ethnic
groups in Canada have applied to themselves, and
which are embodied in the objectives objectives of the
Canada Press Club, are of universal value and should
be made available throughout the world.

Because of the limited time and the absence of a
number of our executive, it was most difficult for
those present to make a formal presentation to this
Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. We
have, therefore, prepared and are pleased to present at
this time on the attached sheet a list of resolutions
which were passed by the Canada Press Club of
Winnipeg for serious consideration by your Com-
mittee.

CANADA PRESS CLUB OF WINNIPEG

Be it Resolved as follows:

1. Canada is a bilingual country.

2. Our Canadian nation is made up of peoples of
many cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it must be
recognized that Canada is a multicultural country.
This multi-culturalism must be given recognition in
any new Constitution or amendments to the present
Constitution.

3. The Ethnic Press of Canada feels very strongly
that in spite of numerous presentations made in regard
to the position of the Ethnic Press and their extensive
services to the various commissions, to which our
briefs and presentations have been made, they were
ahnost completely ignored and in this regard we feel
that these commissions are disregarding the multi-
cultural nature of Canada.

4. Further evidence of the failure of the Govermnent
of Canada to recognize the multi-cultural nature of
our country is in their lack of incentive to take steps
in order to implement representations to the Secretary
of State and to the Canada Council in regard to
assistance towards the continuation of the worthy and
historical “Canada Ethnica” series of books in English
and French.

5. The usefulness and value of international centres
in different parts of Canada have been well estab-
lished. We urge that this service be enlarged and that
the central principle be considered in the extension of
this service by the cosmopolitan nature of the people
of Canada.

6. All immigrants must wait 5 years before they can
become a Canadian citizen and excepting those from
Britain, these immigrants must wait at least 5 years
before they have the privilege of voting. We urge that
these existing discriminatory measures against immi-
grants from elsewhere other than the British Isles, be
removed from any new or revised Constitution.

APPENDIX “K”

BRIEF

submitted to

The Special Joint Committee of the
Senate and House of Commons on the

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

by

The Jaycee Units of Metropolitan Winnipeg

PREAMBLE

One of the basic tenets of the Canada Jaycees is
“Canadianism”. Each unit within the Canada Jaycees
has undertaken to stimulate a vigorous Canadian
national sentiment and to portray Canada for Cana-
dians by making them more conscious and apprecia-
tive of their heritage and the Canadian way of life.
Embraced within this is the recognition that change
and progress in the Canadian Constitution and govern-
ment policies are necessary in order to achieve a
greater national unity. When the announcement was
made that the joint committee of the Senate and of
the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada
and the British North America Act would hold
public hearings, the Jaycee Units in Metropolitan
Winnipeg decided to submit a joint brief to the
Committee. These units comprise Winnipeg, St. James-
Assiniboia, St. Vital, St. Boniface, and Transcona.

In a newspaper article accompanying the notice of
hearings there appeared the phrase “What do I want
Canada to be? “. It is to this question that this brief is
directed. Some of the recommendations deal solely
with government policy and do not necessarily require
a constitutional amendment whereas other recommen-
dations, in order to be implemented, would require
making provision therefor in a constitution. This
submission is not intended as an exhaustive review of
all matterswithin the Committee’s terms of reference
but includes only those areas which we found topical
and upon which we felt competent to comment in
view of the limited preparation time between the
announcement of the hearings and the submission of
the brief.

Such matters as the modernizing or clarifying of the
division of powers to ensure exclusive jurisdiction of
the Parliament of Canada over such matters as commu-
nications, external affairs and the exportation of
natural resources; or providing for concurrent jurisdic-
tion in such matters as medical care and welfare or to
putting teeth back into the Trade and Commerce
power, are all deserving of specific treatment and
specific recommendations. It is regretted that it was
not possible for us to give these items adequate
consideration to enable us to make specific recommen-
dations.

INDEX

Summary of Recommendations
The Monarchy
Canadian Sovereignty
The Senate
Education
Bilingualism and Biculturalism
Immigration

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

I. The Monarchy

That the concept of the English Crown as the titular
head of the federal and provincial govemements be
retained for the present.

II. Canadian Sovereignty

1. That Canada develop and deal with its natural
resources in such a way so as not to create vested or
other interest in favor of foreign countries that may
irrevocably obligate Canada to those other countries in
the future.

2. That Canada attempt so far as is practicable to
develop without obligation to other countries its own
natural resources and that such development be for
domestic purposes and advantage but without the
commitment to uncontrolled economic growth.

III. The Senate

1. That the Senate be restructured so as to give each
province equal voice in its affairs.

2. That each province elect or appoint its own
representatives to the Senate.

3. That consideration be given to defining a new role
for the Senate that will make equal provincial partici-
pation meaningful

IV. Education

1. That the subject matter of education be a dual
federal/provincial responsibility in the same manner as
“agriculture and immigration” is dealt with in Section
95 of the British North America Act.

V. Bilingualism and Biculturalism

1. That the constitution provide that French and
English be made national languages.

2. That the subject matter “language rights” be
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada.

3. That in the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect
to “language rights” the Parliament of Canada imple-
ment bilingualism gradually through the schools in
each province.

4. That the constitution make it clear that the term
“language rights” includes the power to interfere
directly and to trench upon any jurisdiction which a
province may have with respect to education general-
ly.

VI. Immigration

1. That Canada institute a visa system for all persons
entering Canada and that arrangements be made for
the granting of visitors’ visas valid for up to three
months by immigration officials at all points of entry
to Canada for those persons who are United States
citizens or British subjects.

2. That contact be maintained with those persons
entering Canada as visitors to insure that they do not
illegaly remain in Canada after the expiration of their
visa.

3. That persons who enter Canada as visitors and
who, while still in Canada, apply for “landed irnmi-
grant status” be in no better position with respect to
the application than if they had made application for a
landed immigrant visa while resident in their country
of origin.

THE MONARCHY

Since 1867, the history of Canada has been eviden-
ced by a slow but sure alienation from the United
Kingdom. From the repeal of the Colonial Laws
Validity Act, the passing of the Statute of Westminster
in 1931, the independent role in external affairs, the
making of the Supreme Court of Canada the Court of
last resort in 1949, our own flag, the stress on “O
Canada” as our National Anthem, have all added to
the estrangement. Inevitably the United Kingdom and
indeed the Crown has become more remote. With each
passing generation, fortunately or unfortunately, de-
pending on how you view the matter, the English
Crown becomes more irrelevant.

At the present time, passions are aroused for and
against the Monarchy. Those opposed to the Monar-
chy have lived with it for many years and are probably
able to live with it for a few more years. Those persons
who favor the Monarchy hold deep emotional convic-
tions, and should the Monarchy lose the place which it
now holds, the resultant disaffection of these people
would create a climate which would certainly not be
conducive to Canadian unity.

With each new generation, the high emotional feel-
ing towards the Monarchy becomes less intense; in-
deed, it would not be surprising that if a poll was
taken amongst those persons between fifteen and
twenty-five years of age that a strong feeling of
antipathy towards the Monarchy would be the result.

No change in the position of the Crown as the titular
head of the govemements in Canada is suggested at
this time because of the consequent disunity. It is our
submission that the trend towards alienation with the
British Crown will continue to evolve naturally and
the concept will wither on the vine. When the vine is
finally cut, there will be little national trauma.

CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY

Our country has been blessed with an abundance of
natural resources in the form of minerals, timber,
pulpwood and water. The control of our natural
resources which is already in the hands of American
Corporations has been notoriously documented of
late. The overt desires of our neighbor the the South
to establish a continental energy policy and oil policy
are pure indications of a future threat to the Canadian
control of its own natural resources. It is unquestioned
that the United States not only covets our natural
resources but actually requires them in order to
maintain its position of economic dominance and the
rate of expansion necessary to insure that there is no
drop in the standard of living. (See “Projected Cana-
dian Exports to U.S.” attached)

Does Canada wish to take the position that we
should only share our resources if the price is right
from a dollars and cents point of view? It is submitted
that this philosophy should have no place in current
Canadian thinking. This is not to say that Canada
ought under no circumstances sell its natural resources
whether they be oil or water, to the United States;
indeed, there are many occasions where it is right to
do so. There are two caveats which must be in the
forefront of any policy in this regard. The first is that
the sharing of our natural resources with the United
States must not make us irrecovably committed in the
future to continue the supply—it must not give rise to
what the Americans call “vested interests” which
make it improper to cease to share. Canada must not
be estopped from reclaiming for its own self its own
natural resources. The second is that Canada should as
far as possible exercise such influence upon the pur-
chasers of our natural resources as will persuade them
to take steps to prevent the pollution of the world
environment which could result from a commitment
to uncontrolled economic growth.

As far as possible, Canada should attempt to exploit
its own natural resources in Canada, but again taking
our lessons from galloping economic expansion in such
places as United States and Japan, such exploitation
should not be to the detriment of the environment.

Although these matters are perhaps inappropriate to
be embodied in a constitution, it is our submission
that our natural resources are for the benefit of
mankind and ought not to be used indirectly to the
detriment of humanity.

THE SENATE

At each Provincial Premier’s Conference one hears
from the West cries of discrimination by Ottawa
against the West in favor of the East and in particular
an apparent appeasement of Quebec. Complaints
about the concentration of industry and all federal
government services in the East, inadequate tax equal-
ization treatment, disparate sources of revenue be-
tween the provinces, the removal of the Air Canada
Overhaul Base to Montreal, the underwriting of Expo
67 losses to the tune of 250 million dollars, the
apparent cavalier treatment of those engaged in agri-
culture in the Western Provinces, the closing of the Air
Bases at Gimli and Rivers, et cetera, give to a west-
emer the impression that although all provinces are
equal, some are more equal than others.

These mutterings of discontent may or may not have
a basis in fact, but the point is that there is no political
council in which the provinces are but a voice in the
wilderness. What is needed is a return to the concept
in the British North America Act of some truly
regional body that will give an adequate voice to
provincial interests.

It is suggested that the Senate might be such a body.
It is not intended here to suggest specifics of a
restructured Senate, but it is submitted that there
ought to be equal provincial representation in the
Senate.

Such a recommendation with nothing more would
be a milksop in the absence of a redefinition of the
role of the Senate in the management of the country’s
affairs. Let us bring back the original concept of the
Senate as truly representing all regional jurisdictions.
Membership in the Senate ought not to be a reward
for political service but each province should be
entitled to elect or appoint its own representatives to a
new Senate for a fixed term. It is not suggested that
the role of the new Senate should usurp the function
of the House of Commons, however matters such as
provincial or regional incentive grants to industry,
Canadian Development Corporations and other mat-
ters dealing with regional or provincial disparity could
be undertaken by the new Senate. In other words, the
new Senate must be such that the provincial represent-
atives can actually translate into action the interests of
the provinces as opposed to the interests of political
power.

EDUCATION

Just as every Canadian ought to have the same
standard of medical care, so too ought he to have the
same educational opportunities. The “rich” provinces
can afford better facilities, curriculum and teachers
than can the less fortunate provinces. This applies at
primary and secondary levels as well as at the college
or university level.

In addition to the financial inequities, a problem
encountered by many Canadians concerns the differ-
ent curricula in the various provinces. Canadians are
becoming more and more peripatetic and the number
of inter-provincial moves has created a problem with
many school age children. A uniform standard through-
out Canada for basic subjects ought to be imple-
mented. It is recognized that this may only be done
through a strong central body.

In order therefore to equalize educational oppor-
tunities for all Canadians, to eliminate the problems
that the varying curricula pose it is suggested that
“education” be within the jurisdiction of the Parlia-
ment of Canada. It is recognized that it is inappropri-
ate, impractical and unwise to give to the Parliament
of Canada sole responsibility for education, therefore
the subject matter ought to be subject to concurrent
jurisdiction of both the provinces and the centre.

It is recognized that education traditionally has been
selfishly guarded as a provincial right and that some
refinement of the concurrent jurisdiction might be
necessary in order to work out a viable division.

BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM

According to the 1961 census, 31 per cent of the
Canadian population, or 5,540,346, was of French
racial origin; the number being spread over the entire
country with the greater concentration in the popu-
lated southern section of the province of Quebec.

There are approximately one million French Canadi-
ans living outside the Province of Quebec. It is not
intended in this brief to restate those matters that
have been exhaustively reviewed by the Federal
Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, nor is it
our intention in this supporting brief to defend bilin-
gualism as such. It is our submission that unless bilin-
gualism is promoted throughout Canada that the dissa-
tisfaction in Quebec will grow and national disunity will
result. Thenconsequence could be a Balkanization of
Canada and the eventual absorption of Canada into
the United States. We have proceeded on the premise
that the future of Canada depends upon the success of
bilingualism. No one can expect instant bilingualism
and it is only through a long process of education
throughout Canada that bilingualism can be achieved.
The provinces carmot be trusted to implement ade-
quate educational language programs into their school
systems indeed, they cannot afford it. The direction,
control and financing of a national English/French
language curriculum must be within the powers of the
Parliament of Canada. The subject matter of “language
rights” ought to be within the sole jurisdiction of the
Parliament of Canada and embraced ‘within such a
power ought to be found the enabling power to
implement through direct access to provincial educa-
tion systems.

It is only when a generation or two have received
adequate training that bilingualism can be made com-
pulsory for all purposes throughout the entire nation.
Once we have bilingualism, biculturalism will naturally
follow.

IMMIGRATION

New immigration regulations became effective Feb-
ruary 1, 1962, which placed emphasis on education,
training and skills, possessed by prospective immi-
grants, however, intangible qualities such as resources-
fulness, initiative, integrity and flexibility were also
taken into consideration.

Canada’s first White Paper on Immigration was
tabled in the House of Commons in October, 1966 by
the Honourable Jean Marchand, Minister of Manpower
and Immigration.

The White paper outlined the Government’s views
on a new immigration policy which would have three
main features.

First, it is expansionist; it proposes the basis for a
steadily active immigration policy adapted to Canada’s
manpower needs for economic growth.

Second, it is non-discriminatory; it establishes princi-
ples and procedures that can and will operate entirely
without regard to colour, race or creed.

Third, it confirms, and in some respects extends,
most of the privileges of sponsoring relatives as immi-
grants which are now enjoyed by Canadian citizens
and by other people who are already permanent
residents. Future immigrants. will have fewer sponsor-
ship privileges until they have lived in Canada for five
years and become citizens.

In general the essence of these Regulations is that
for the first time they spell out, systematically and
publicly, the criteria by which the department at-
tempts to judge whether an applicant is likely to
establish himself successfully in Canada.

The Regulations provide for the sponsorship of
dependent relatives as a matter of right. Dependents
are admissible without regard either to their own
qualifications or to the financial circumstances of the
sponsor. They come because they are wanted and they
are people who can normally expect their relatives to
keep them.

The Regulations make a clear distinction between
dependents and relatives entering the working force.
As a matter of fact, there are three categories of
immigrants: “sponsored dependents” (matter of
right), (wife, chfldren, father and mother) nominated
relatives, (brother, sister), (that is, persons not nor-
mally dependent on the sponsor—must comply with a
relaxed version of our selection criteria). Independent
applicants are required to meet a specified and
publicized selection standard which may be summar-
ized as follows: (Based on a possible 100 points — 9
factors a total of 100 Units.)

1. Education and Training:
2. Personal Assessment:
3. Occupational Demand:
4. Occupational Skill:
5. Age:
6. Arranged Employment:
7. Knowledge of French and English:
8. Relative:
9. Employment Opportunities in Area of Destin-
ation:

To qualify for admission, and independent applicant
will normally have to obtain 50 of the 100 assessment
units available. A major feature of the selection
standards is that applicants are assessed as total
individuals and that no one factor, be it personal
suitability, education, language, employment oppor-
tunity, et cetera, is capable of disqualifying the
applicant by itself. The total man is assessed—not one
or two of his qualifications.

Immigration is a shared responsibility—that is,
shared between Federal and Provincial authorities.

The role of the province is to create an atmosphere
favourable to the integration of immigrants, to provide
publicity and documentation in order to make the
province known abroad. Social welfare questions,
above all accreditation of diplomas and qualifications
of immigrants, fall strictly within the jurisdiction of
the province. The Federal Department has the final
responsibility in immigration and this is naturally so
when we consider that the Department exercises
authority which is applicable in all provinces. This
carries with it the responsibility of not favouring one
province or area above another.

However, there are a few flaws. A breakdown in
federal machinery is allowing immigrants who would
never get past normal channels to enter Canada as
visitors, and then stay indefinitely.

Thousands are entering each year and the number is
rising as a result of loopholes and a lenient appeal
board. The proportions of the problem are best seen at
the appeal board level, an independent nine-member
body that handles 85 to 100 cases a month. It is
getting appeals against deportation at the rate of 250
to 300 cases a month. After two years of operation, it
has a backlog of 3,000 cases. In other words, if appeals
stopped today, it would take the board 2 to 2 1/2
years to catch up.

A selective immigration system started in 1967 is
aimed at weeding out unskilled, uneducated applicants
in their home country via a test. If refused a landed
immigrant visa their only right is to reapply in six
months. There is no right to appeal the refusal of such
a visa.

Canada has waived visa requirements from a number
of countries for visitors who are here less than three
months, created the appeal board, and given deportees
the right to appeal at public expense. This means that,
with certain exceptions, (notably communist coun-
tries) a person can enter Canada without a visa as a
visitor and, once in Canada, apply for landed immi-
grant status. If such a person is ordered deported, he
may appeal at once, usually with the knowledge that it
will be months possibly years before a definitive order
is made.

Because the board can quash an order on compas-
sionate grounds, would-be immigrants who are appeal-
ing often marry quickly on arrival in Canada. Marriage
and children born in this country naturally enhance
their chance of staying.

Easy access to social security cards and jobs make
the short-cut route even more attractive.

The present system is not adequate and the defects
appear to be in the areas of the lack of a visa
requirement, the failure to keep in periodic touch with
persons after they have entered Canada as visitors and
with the apparent abuse of the appeal process by
persons who wish to shortcut the usual channels.

Although it is not a matter for inclusion in a
constitution it would appear to be a matter which
could undermine the philosophy evident in the govern-
ment’s White Paper, and this affects all Canadians.

Canada’s policy is to keep enough resources to
last us for 30 years, and if there was a threat to our
supply, exports would be limited. Our sources of
natural gas and petroleum, for instance, are so vast
that any shortage is highly unlikely. However, our
needs and those of the Americans could conflict in
the cases of lead and copper—which is in such short
supply that it has been predicted all world sources
will be depleted in 20 years. And if we wish to
continue to develop at a normal rate, we could find
ourselves on a collision course with the US over
iron ore—the source of steel. Because of our
anticipated conversion to nuclear power genera-
tion, Canada has already limited foreign ownership
of uranium for the next six years. Although we
have one-fourth of the world’s supply of fresh
water, the needs of the US are so vast that, if we
are not careful, we could be left without enough
for ourselves.

WHAT THEY’VE GOT TO HAVE

PROJECTED CANADIAN EXPORTS TO US

*See PDF for table

Queen’s Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970

Other Issues: