ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO DU GRAND SUDBURY INC
STERLING CAMPBELL AND LASALLE SECONDARY SCHOOL
LE COLLECTIF POUR LE COLLÈGE DU NORD
CERCLE DE RÉFLEXION SUR L'AVENIR DU CANADA
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR ENGLISH RIGHTS
ELLIOT LAKE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
L'ASSOCIATION DES ÉTUDIANT(E)S
FRANCOPHONES DE LA LAURENTIENNE
CONTENTS
Tuesday 12 February 1991
Roger St-Louis
John Rodriguez
Jean Léveillé
Richard Logtenberg
Fred and Julie Johannes
Vincent di Norcia
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario du grand Sudbury inc
Sterling Campbell and Lasalle Secondary School
Le collectif pour le collège du Nord
Cercle de réflexion sur l'avenir du Canada
Ernie Checkeris
Wanda Flis
George Cast
Afternoon sitting
Sudbury District Association for English Rights
Léo Therrien
Elliot Lake and District Labour Council
Jean Dennie
Clayton Shawana
Gilbert Grays
Dialogue Sudbury
Evening sitting
Carrefour francophone
L'Association des étudiant(e)s francophones de la Laurentienne
Luc Comeau
Joe Gignac
Marie-Anne Levac
Sudbury Women's Centre
Le Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario
Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association
Daniel Brouillette
Adjournment
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION
Chair: Silipo, Tony
(Dovercourt NDP)
Vice-Chair: Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South NDP)
Beer, Charles (York North L)
Churley, Marilyn (Riverdale NDP)
Eves, Ernie L. (Parry Sound PC)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls NDP)
Malkowski, Gary (York East NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa Rideau L)
Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitution: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie NDP) for Ms
Harrington
Also taking part: Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Clerk: Manikel, Tannis
Clerk pro tem: Brown, Harold
Staff:
Kaye, Philip, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
Drummond, Alison, Research Officer, Legislative Research Officer
The committee met at 0935 in the Civic Centre, Sudbury.
The Chair: I would like to call this meeting to order. My name, first of all, is Tony Silipo and I am the Chair of the Ontario select committee on Ontario in Confederation.
I want to say on behalf of the committee to all of the people who are here that we are pleased to be in Sudbury this morning and for the rest of the day in three sessions, this morning, this afternoon and this evening, to hear the views of the people of this area on the various aspects of people's thoughts and aspirations on constitutional matters and indeed aspects having to do with Confederation in general.
This is the second of four weeks of travels that we will be doing across the province. Last week had us in various communities in the northwest of the province, ending in Sault Ste Marie. Yesterday we were in Timmins and tomorrow we will be proceeding to North Bay, Thursday to Orillia and Collingwood, and then to other parts of the province in the two weeks following.
I know that there are a number of young people here in the audience and we are pleased about that. Many of them are from the secondary school here in Sudbury, and I welcome them on behalf of the committee. I gather with the group of students from Lasalle Secondary School is a former member of the Legislature, Sterling Campbell. I do not know where Mr Campbell is, but welcome, Mr Campbell.
I want to introduce the members of the committee. Normally we have nameplates, but part of the thing that happens in this hectic travel schedule is that sometimes things get stuck in different places, so the name tags may or may not arrive for members of the committee, but we do as we best can.
This is an all-party committee made up of representatives from the three political parties which have representatives at Queen's Park. From the Liberal caucus we have Charles Beer, Yvonne O'Neill and Steven Offer; from the Conservative caucus there are Ernie Eves, who will no doubt be making his way in momentarily, and Charles Harnick; from the NDP caucus we have Gary Malkowski, Gilles Bisson, who is also Vice-Chair of the committee, Fred Wilson, Marilyn Churley, Tony Martin and David Winninger. Also joining us today is the MPP for Algoma-Manitoulin, Mike Brown.
Just by way of the ground rules, we have a full list of deputants for this morning, and indeed throughout the rest of the day. What I would like to ask, as we have been doing in other locations to try to accommodate as many as possible, is, if there are other people whose names are not on the list but who would like to try to speak to us, that they please make themselves known to the clerk of the committee who will be circulating, or to any of our people who will be around, and we will do our best.
In order to do that, we would like to ask the people who will be presenting if they can to try to limit their presentations to about 10 minutes if they are individuals and about 20 minutes if they are here representing organizations. That will allow us, as best as possible, to try to get in as many different groups and individuals as we can.
The other thing I would like to say is that we would appreciate it if people would like to sit at the table with us when they are speaking or, if they prefer, they can use the podium at the end of the room.
ROGER ST-LOUIS
The Chair: I call the first person, Roger St-Louis, who is already here. M. St-Louis.
M. St-Louis : J'ai sept enfants et ils sont tous ici. J'ai fréquenté l'école de Sudbury.
Le but de cette présentation est d'illustrer les besoins spéciaux des personnes sourdes d'origine francophone de l'Ontario.
Il n'existe aucune donnée démographique sur les personnes sourdes et malentendantes francophones en Ontario, ni dans les autres provinces du Canada. Il faudrait mettre sur pied un comité pour faire un sondage afin de connaître le nombre de Franco-Ontariens sourds, car la majorité des personnes sourdes provenant de familles francophones ont été assimilées par les écoles anglaises et ont perdu leur identité et patrimoine. Les services en français qui sont quasiment inexistants les ont forcées de passer par les organismes anglophones pour pouvoir rejoindre la clientèle francophone.
Il faudrait subventionner l'Association des sourds de l'Ontario pour obtenir un personnel adéquat afin de subvenir aux besoins primordiaux de la population sourde de l'Ontario, car depuis trop longtemps déjà, ce sont des bénévoles qui s'occupent du fonctionnement de cette association. Il ne va pas sans dire que la tâche devient parfois très lourde, voire écrasante à supporter. Nous avons donc un besoin immédiat de personnel pour gérer le tout, car les secteurs anglais et français desservis par le bénévolat ne peuvent plus durer.
En ce qui concerne les services éducationnels, beaucoup de ces services manquent ou sont inexistants. Il nous faut de bons programmes pour éliminer l'analphabétisme. Ainsi, je souligne le fait que le problème de la surdité semble avoir créé un obstacle pour l'enfant sourd, soit-il français ou anglais en raison de l'oppression de sa langue, il n'a pu surmonter les problèmes de l'analphabétisme, n'ayant aucun soutien pédagogique. Il n'a pu enrichir ses connaissances et devenir autonome.
Le besoin immédiat d'établir une école provinciale francophone pour les sourds en Ontario est urgent. Il est très frustrant de se rendre compte que l'enquête provinciale du ministère de l'Éducation, qui a étudié les programmes à l'intention des enfants sourds, n'a pas encore menée à un financement équitable des programmes et des services à l'intention des enfants sourds franco-ontariens.
Plusieurs services manquent encore : la formation francophone de professionnels sensibilisés aux implications de la surdité ; l'accès aux services d'interprétariat oral et gestuel ; l'accès à un milieu qui respecte la culture des sourds ; et des services éducationnels, qui ne sont pas existants.
Le présent gouvernement accepte que la langue des sourds, LSQ, langue des signes québécois, et son équivalent en anglais, ASL, American sign language, soient introduites comme projet pilote. Nous attendons impatiemment les finances requises pour mettre en oeuvre les besoins immédiats.
Je vous énumère ces huit besoins fondamentaux :
1. Un centre de recherche linguistique sur la LSQ et production d'un dictionnaire adapté à la clientèle sourde franco-ontarienne ;
2. Mettre sur pied un centre pour la formation d'interprètes français ;
3. Une école française provinciale pour sourds francophones ;
4. La formation de professeurs pour l'enseignement de la LSQ ;
5 .Des cours en LSQ crédités ;
6. Un centre culturel de folklore pour les Franco-Ontariens ;
7. Un centre de formation pour les professionnels sensibilisés aux implications de la surdité, à tous niveaux ;
8. Enchâsser notre langue, LSQ, et son équivalent en anglais, ASL, dans la constitution.
À l'heure actuelle, il n'existe pas de programmes de formation en français au niveau de la surdité en Ontario, ni dans les autres provinces. Les ressources humaines sont rares ou presque inexistantes, il va de même pour les ressources pédagogiques et matérielles adaptées à la surdité.
Pour la Charte des droits et libertés : il n'y a pas de barrières chez les entendants car ils ont accès à tout ce qu'ils peuvent toucher, tandis que chez les malentendants et les personnes sourdes il s'en trouve des barrières à tout. Il faudrait enchâsser notre langue LSQ et son équivalent en anglais ASL dans la constitution, car de là nos droits seraient respectés. Partout au Canada, les personnes sourdes ne sont pas respectées et sont mises de côté.
Aussi, les relations interprovinciales entre sourds sont importantes, car nous avons et utilisons tous le même mode de communication, c'est-à-dire le langage gestuel. La reconnaissance de la langue des signes propre à chaque communauté sourde est un mouvement mondial. C'est une langue qui sort de la clandestinité. Nous voulons lui donner sa pleine valeur. En plus, il ne faut pas perdre le Québec de vue. S'il veut se séparer, c'est à cause du manque de respect par les autres provinces. Peut-être que l'égoïsme prend le dessus dans les autres provinces ?
Alors il est temps de réfléchir comment le Québec et les sourds sont vus en général et comment l'on voit les personnes sourdes en comparaison au Québec. Est-ce important ou non ?
Aussi, j'espère que le gouvernement de l'Ontario financera l'Association des sourds de l'Ontario afin de minimiser le fardeau déjà rendu trop lourd pour les bénévoles qui occupent les postes au sein de l'association.
Merci d'avoir bien voulu me donner quelques minutes pour vous citer cette présentation.
Mr Beer: Thank you for your presentation. I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we have heard several times about the plight of the francophone deaf people and we realize that they need interpreters and that they need programs in LSQ, la langue des signes québécois. Certainly when we go back home, it is going to be one of the main things that we are going to be including in our report.
Could you tell me, in this area, are there exchanges between the deaf francophones with Quebec? For example, in training centres where they teach LSQ, do they have schools that are reserved for the deaf people? Before Ontario has its own programs, we should make sure that we work with Quebec so that there would be better services in Ontario.
Mr St-Louis: There are not too many interpreters in Quebec and it is the same throughout the province. It is the same in Quebec and in Ontario. There is not too much in French.
Mrs V. O'Neill: Thank you very much, Mr St-Louis. May I ask you what the situation is at present? Do francophone deaf children leave this community to obtain their instructions? Is there a self-help group here? What is the actual status at the present time? I am very pleased that you enumerated so clearly the needs, some of which I had not even thought of, although they are very obvious. Could you tell us what the present situation is for deaf francophone children?
Mr St-Louis: We would like to set up a school for the deaf francophones over here. Right now they have to go outside and they have to go to Quebec, but we have to set up a school for the deaf francophone children over here.
Mrs V. O'Neill: I certainly agree and I think that the family is very important. We heard this yesterday as well, that the children must leave the family for extended periods of time, and that no doubt has a great deal of effect on how they develop.
The Chair: Are there other questions? Merci, M. St Louis.
0950
JOHN RODRIGUEZ
The Chair: I call next John Rodriguez, the member for Nickel Belt, MP.
Mr J. Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Let me welcome all of my provincial colleagues who are on this committee to the great riding of Nickel Belt. I think it is wonderful. Never in the history of Nickel Belt have we seen so many southern Ontario MPPs located in one spot. We trust that this experience will open your eyes to the realities of northern Ontario: the travel, the distance between communities, etc.
You may also have noticed that since we do not see MPPs gathered together in one group so often, we always take the opportunity to tell you everything that we have on our mind. It does not matter what it is. If we have an ingrown toenail, we will tell you about it.
Mr Chairman, I am pleased you have touched on this and I am pleased to see the young students, young people here today. You are the future Canadians, and it is important and imperative that you be part of history in the making. Your children and your grandchildren will be studying these events in school in years to come.
In contemplating my appearance before this committee, I was getting advice from people. One group of people said to me: "You're crazy, Rodriguez, absolutely crazy. This is a no-win situation. You're an elected member and this whole business of Constitution and the relationship between, for example, Quebec and the rest of the country, is a no-win situation. You are going to get out there and you are going to say things that are not going to endear you to the hearts of many of the people you represent. That is bad for you, bad for an elected politician."
On the other hand, there were others who said to me:
"Elected politicians should have ideas, and not only should they have ideas, but they ought to share them. They ought to express the way they feel about our country and they should not think that they can't trust their constituents to understand." So it is a question of trust.
Therefore, I have chosen to come before this committee and express the way I feel. It is not a party line. I think the party is still sorting itself out on this one. But I have come here to tell you about how I feel about Canada and the relationships within the country and I base my remarks on a couple of realities about present relationships in Canada and a couple of observations about our federal structure.
The first reality is that a majority of Quebeckers want to remain in Canada, provided there is a devolution of federal power. That is backed up by polls, the most recent one a Gallup in early January. The second reality is that a majority of Canadians believe that those living outside Quebec want Quebec to remain in Canada. That is in the same Gallup poll of early January.
The first observation I have made as a politician is that Canadians want changes in the way we are governed. The second observation is that Canadians want a say in the way those decisions are made about how we govern ourselves and about all aspects of national life, physical, cultural and economic.
I remember when I came to Canada in 1956. I went to the cinema, and of course, I came from a British colony. We had not thrown off the shackles of imperialism then. I came to Canada in 1956 and went to the movie, and what did I see on the screen before the movie started? They showed the Queen on a horse and they played God Save the Queen. We all stood up like the Duke of York marching up the hill and then we all sat down at the end of it.
Lo and behold, I was amazed to see that here was a country that was free and independent and our flag at that time was the Union Jack. It was somebody else's flag. It was a foreign country's flag. When I asked about the Canadian Constitution I was told it was a British act. It was an act of the British Parliament and it was not here. I said, "Can I go and see it in Ottawa?" They said: "No, you cannot. You would have to go to Westminster in London." That is where it was kept.
I recall I was living in Toronto and the majority of Torontonians were white Anglo-Saxons. I could walk down the streets of Toronto for blocks and not see a face other than a white face. Now I want to tell you that today if you go down into Toronto and you walk a block, you probably see that out of three people, two faces would be of a distinct nature. What has happened is that there have been a lot of changes. It seems that there is one constant that I have come to accept; that one thing you can really bank on is that things change.
For some time now it has been my observation that Canadians, in a real sense, have felt straitjacketed by the system of what I call vertical federalism. For example, if you have travelled in western Canada, western Canadians are very suspicious of the east, particularly of Toronto. They see all the economic power centralized in Ottawa. Residents of Atlantic Canada see Ottawa's solution to their problems as relocating them. The Canada-US free trade agreement was entered into without proper consultation with the provinces, and now a further free trade agreement with Mexico is being designed without proper and adequate consultation with the provinces and the people. Provinces have established trade barriers against each other in an attempt to protect themselves. Imagine our having established a free trade agreement with the United States and we have not even collapsed the barriers between and among Canadian provinces.
The goods and services tax was a unilateral action by the federal government resulting in court challenges in Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and British Columbia. The most vivid example is the recent monetary policies of John Crow and Michael Wilson who are pursuing a high interest rate policy to dampen inflation. Where were the inflationary fires? They were certainly not in Alberta at 2% inflation. They certainly were not in the Atlantic provinces. The inflationary fires were particularly in Toronto and probably in the Golden Horseshoe. As a result we had a recession, so everybody suffers.
These all represent, in my view, perfect examples of what I call vertical federalism or the trickle-down theory of federalism, highly centralized decision-making with no input from Canadians. The cynical part of this kind of vertical federalism is that it often suited provincial governments to engage in fed bashing. Oftentimes provincial governments have won re-election simply because they bashed the feds: "But I can't do anything about this. It's the federal government. Can't do anything."
It seems to me that this is at the provincial level and the vertical federalism has further frustrated Canadians and left us scapegoating. Since we at the grass roots level cannot deal with the macro problems, we start dealing with the things we can touch, which is each other and so we start blaming everybody else: Manitoba and Quebec blaming each other over the CF-18 contract; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec over the frigate contracts; Ontario versus Quebec over the location of the space agency; aboriginal people take on the feds and the provinces over land claims and treaty rights; bilingualism where English rights groups claim that francophones are getting better treated; unemployed Canadians blame new immigrants for taking jobs from them.
In this climate, trust has been destroyed. Shut out from having a say, the provinces turn on each other in frustration.
I think we need to look at some changes and I think the Italians have a have a very nice word which we can apply in this situation in Canada and which we need, and the word is "risorgimento." What we need now in my view as part of this risorgimento is more horizontal federalism. We need to create a horizontal model which allows people to participate in decision-making that helps to build a country.
It means the barriers between provinces must come down, such as trade barriers. It means a lot more shared responsibility between federal and provincial governments. By definition, it rejects the image of Canada as a family where the federal government is head and the provinces are children. Can you imagine that concept I have heard so often, that Canada is a family and the federal government is the papa and all the little bears sit around the table and they are supposed to do what the feds tell them?
1000
I think we have to replace that. I like to think of the image of Canada where the federal government and the provinces sit down and there is a recognition that all have an equal responsibility to the people of Canada. This model recognizes that the first nations of Canada are entitled to self-government and a seat at the table of this new Confederation. This model would provide for co-ordination and harmonization which would eliminate much duplication, cut costs and time delays and eliminate frustration and misunderstanding.
We have been dealing with Bill C-83, which is the reorganization of financial institutions in this country, and I want to tell you, if any of you have ever looked at that, that it is one jungle. What you have is the federal government with one set of rules for the establishment of financial institutions and each province has its own and in many cases they are very different from the federal government's. In fact Ontario has what is called Ontario equals, which somehow means Ontario says, "I don't care what the other provinces have got for financial institutions organizations, but in Ontario you have to conform." This model would allow for national goal-setting and responsibilities would be more clearly established.
In conclusion, we ought not to lock ourselves into the positions of the past. I have always felt that a Constitution that served the previous generation well may not be appropriate to today's generation. It seems to me that Constitutions evolve in concert with the needs of people. Since the Old Testament has paraphrased me well, I think I should repeat it, "You can't put new wine in old wineskins." I think people are looking for something that more reflects the needs of the present generation.
I thank you for your kind attention and if there are any questions I am prepared to try and dialogue with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Rodriguez. We are beyond the time, but I know that there is a lot of interest from members of the committee. I will allow one, possibly two, questions, if we can try to keep them brief.
Mr F. Wilson: Mr Rodrigues, we have heard from municipal politicians, of course, but you are the first elected federal politician to come before us. I think you may have started somewhat of a trend. We will see that as we progress.
You mentioned a couple of things that we have noticed in the last few days, the feeling of lack of input from Canadians and the frustration, and we have even seen some scapegoating going on. We will address those, of course, in our deliberations over the next few weeks in our report to come in later on.
What I would like to take the opportunity to ask you right now, based on your experience and your years of service to the country, is at some point we will be reaching out to other commissions and other committees in Canada and of course the federal initiative also, and what do you think we can expect or should we be looking for when we do reach out to sort of co-ordinate or co-operate or share information with those groups, considering that at some point we are all going to be coming together at some place and time to solve the dilemma we are presently in?
Mr J. Rodriguez: As far as I understand your task, this first round is to really get people to sort of loosen up and let you know where they are at. This is why I have not been suggesting very specific things about federal-provincial relations. I thought the first thrust of the committee was to really get people talking and let you know where we are coming from and how we feel. I think when you get into your next phase and as you approach groups, I would think that you would want to direct people with very specific questions.
This booklet was very good with questions: fluffy, but you could not do this in 10 minutes. All these areas, talking about how we can make Canada strong and a competitor globally, which is the new language now, well, you could not do that in 10 minutes, so I think you will have to sort of target the kinds of questions more specifically and give the groups adequate time so that they can do this. I find this is a very instant kind of Constitution, consulting on the hoof, so to speak. So you will need to do it with much more time and be more targeted.
Mr Eves: I think that some of the points you make near the end of your presentation are good ones. I must say that through our first week and now a day and some of hearings, I certainly have been surprised and I would guess that the majority of members on the committee have been surprised as to how many individuals have said that their vision of Canada is a strong central or federal government so that there can be national programs and standards set across Canada.
I have been sort of struck by the fact that most individuals who have appeared before the committee, to date anyway, have said that if anything, they feel perhaps the federal government has been somewhat lacking in not exercising enough authority and providing enough national vision in programs, which seems to go contrary to having stronger provincial governments and contrary to the Allaire report which came out in Quebec a few days ago.
I wonder if you might comment on that.
Mr J. Rodriguez: On this question of strong central governments, I have always been leery about strong central governments. The Soviet Union has a strong central government. China has a strong central government. We have got to be careful, brother.
Mr Eves: I am just telling you what the people are saying.
Mr J. Rodriguez: Yes, I know.
Mr Eves: You may not want to listen to them. I guess that is your prerogative --
Mr J. Rodriguez: No, I am not taking you on, but --
Mr Eves: -- brother.
Mr J. Rodriguez: You know, Ernie, you impinge on my riding and I am glad to see at least you are getting the language.
Mr Eves: I have been here before, John.
Mr J. Rodriguez: No, I am not of the school that thinks that a strong central government or a strong provincial government is what will do it. I am of the opinion that together, both levels of government -- and the municipal governments to a large extent, because oftentimes the municipal government is the recipient of actions taken up the line. What we have to realize is that there should be horizontal federalism in effect. It is not a strong central government, but each level of government has a responsibility to the people it governs and if you are imbued with that sense of responsibility, when you sit down to set goals, you look to see how you can benefit the country as a whole.
We saw John Crow and Michael Wilson, as an example, exercising strong central government and saying, "We will be following a high interest rate policy and damn the horses." What has happened is that the spinoff effects to the regions and the hinterland have been disastrous. Their economies were just coming out of the recession of the 1980s and bang, they get slapped down again.
I have to get away from this kind of macho politics of the strong federal government or a strong provincial government and try to imbue in both levels of government that there is more to be gained by sitting down collectively, recognizing a responsibility and planning together. I hear this from people who tell me, "We want more opportunities for input." People want to have a say. The only way they can have a say is, in my view, through more horizontal federalism, more opportunities to do things co-operatively rather than this business of top-down operations.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Rodriguez. I know that there are a number of other questions, but we simply will not have the time to deal with them. I would just end by saying that on the last point you made that people wanted to have a say, that certainly is a message we have been getting very clearly. Even before that message was beginning to be delivered to us we had talked and are continuing to talk within the committee about different ways to make sure that the discussion does in fact continue, because we see this stage as simply the first part of a two-part process that we need to go through, so thank you for your views.
1010
JEAN LÉVEILLÉ
The Chair: At this point I am going to ask a group that I gather was supposed to have been on the list, but for some reason was not. There is a group of students, I gather, from Espanola with Jean Léveillé, if they would like to come forward now and make their presentation.
M. Léveillé : Monsieur le Président, mesdames, messieurs du comité, il ne m'appartient pas souvent de me présenter devant un comité. Si je me présente devant vous aujourd'hui, c'est que j'ai à coeur l'avenir de mon pays et je crois qu'il est de mon devoir de faire une contribution, si modeste soit-elle, à titre de simple citoyen. C'est aussi, et probablement surtout, parce que je suis enseignant d'histoire du Canada dans la région et il me semblait que l'occasion était toute choisie pour faire vivre un peu d'histoire à mes étudiants.
Je n'ai pas l'intention de vous entretenir sur tous les aspects de notre Confédération, mais j'aimerais exprimer certaines idées sur ce qu'il me semble réaliste pour le Canada de l'avenir, compte tenu des efforts infructueux des décennies passées.
Je suis enseignant depuis 1956 et c'est depuis cette année-là que je m'intéresse à l'avenir des miens, les Canadiens français, particulièrement ceux qui, comme moi, sont Franco-Ontariens. Avant même que la Loi sur les langues officielles ne soit promulguée, tous les Canadiens savaient que le Canada était un pays bilingue, un pays où l'anglais et le français jouissaient d'un certain respect comme le démontrent au moins depuis 1936 les billets de banque canadiens. À ma connaissance, il n'est jamais apparu une autre langue que l'anglais et le français sur ces billets et pourtant, nombreux sont les Canadiens qui aujourd'hui semblent croire que le français n'a pas plus droit de cité au pays que des langues étrangères comme l'italien ou l'allemand, pour n'en nommer que deux.
La lutte pour la reconnaissance du français n'a vraiment jamais cessé depuis les plaines d'Abraham. Les troubles de 1837 au Bas-Canada, l'affaire Riel, la crise d'octobre de 1970, les tentatives infructueuses récentes des gouvernements d'inclure les francophones dans le giron canadien n'ont rien fait, à mon avis, pour apprivoiser l'attitude des Anglo-Canadiens face à l'acceptation des francophones à part entière, et ce d'un océan à l'autre. Au contraire, il me semble que tous ces événements ont servi à alimenter l'intolérance, l'intransigeance voire la haine à travers le pays. Les propos tenus récemment par les adeptes du groupe extrémiste APEC, Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, le démontrent clairement. Les membres de cette association notoire n'ont pas été les premiers à essuyer leurs pieds sur le drapeau du Québec. Le 28 novembre 1967, le journal Le Droit cite Daniel Johnson, le premier ministre du temps au Québec, d'avoir fait de sa province «un ghetto français». E.C. Manning, le premier ministre d'alors au Manitoba, déclarait : «Proclamer la langue française langue officielle dans ma province créerait des remous qui nuiraient à l'unité nationale». On sait maintenant d'où viennent les propos de son fils, Preston Manning.
Il fut un temps, à l'époque Robarts, où il nous était permis d'espérer que l'Ontario embarque à l'instar du Canada et du Nouveau-Brunswick et se prononce bilingue. Effectivement, le 5 février 1968, Le Droit annonçait que la province d'Ontario se déclarait bilingue. Ce fut une fausse joie. Près de 25 ans plus tard, nous sommes encore rendus au point où les francophones de l'Ontario réclament des institutions collégiales et universitaires françaises. Tout le monde sait qu'au Québec, les anglophones jouissent de ces institutions depuis fort longtemps. De fait, l'Université McGill existe depuis bien avant le tournant du siècle.
Le 25 août 1967, les journaux proclamaient que les francophones de l'Ontario avaient enfin leurs écoles secondaires. Il est vrai que beaucoup de régions de la province jouissent aujourd'hui des services de ces écoles, mais il est aussi vrai que dans certains coins où il n'en existe pas, comme à Espanola où j'enseigne, les francophones s'assimilent à un rythme effarant. À titre d'exemple, permettez que je vous souligne qu'à mon école, sur un total de 932 étudiants dont 124 sont des autochtones, j'ai dénombré 247 dont le nom est de consonance française et qui ne parlent plus le français. Ces propos ressemblent étrangement à ceux que vous tenait Émile Blouin de Kenora la semaine dernière. Vous serez surpris d'apprendre que le French Town d'antan n'existe plus à Espanola et que seulement 45 étudiants sont inscrits au cours de français. Les étudiants que vous voyez derrière moi sont les seuls à prendre un cours en français qui soit autre que le français en 10e année. Certains appellent ça de l'intégration, moi j'appelle ça de l'assimilation systématique qui s'apparente à du génocide culturel.
It appears very clear to me that the province is more interested in its relatively new population of visible minorities than it is to grant the francophones their institutions and provide them with the means by which they can achieve their full potential. Only yesterday the newspapers were telling us that the present government was to spend $25 million to promote the visible minorities and women in society. While these are indeed noble intentions and deeds, the francophones of Ontario are caught yet in another legal struggle to affirm their rights, this time concerning the right of French-speaking Ontarians to be treated on the same level as the English-speaking Ontarians concerning their choice of support for educational purposes.
The problem appeared three years ago and has not been solved since. Le Droit states that a group of Franco-Ontarians has decided to ask the court for justice in this matter. Ontario has not been at all fair to its French-speaking population in general. Towns like Belle-Rivière and Pointe-aux-Roches have suddenly become Belle River and Stony Point. The francophones were indeed lucky to have been able to put the acute accent back on Orléans. Is there a word that is more French than Orléans? It too had been anglicized. It appeared that our government wants to prove Mr Lévesque right when he said that the francophones outside Quebec were dead ducks.
Les propos que je tiens vous semblent peut-être pessimistes mais croyez-moi, je n'ai jamais cessé d'espérer pour l'avenir de mon pays. Je crois que la façon la plus efficace de le sauver de la fragmentation c'est d'enrayer l'ignorance. À ceux qui prétendent que le bilinguisme coûte trop cher, je réponds que tout coûte cher. La paix coûte cher, la guerre coûte cher, le bilinguisme coûte cher. À mon avis, ce qui coûte encore plus cher, c'est bien l'ignorance.
Je crois que le ministère de l'Éducation aurait avantage à travailler de concert avec les autres provinces dans le but d'introduire un autre élément obligatoire dans les cours d'étude des Canadiens. Cet élément pourrait se donner la mission de détruire les mythes et les faussetés qui enflamment la tête des extrémistes et, espérons-le, pourrait servir à consolider les liens qui nous unissent plutôt que de concentrer sur les différences qui nous séparent.
The Chair: Question, Mr Malkowski?
Mr Malkowski: I was quite impressed with your presentation and your points and it has given me a better understanding on some of the issues. I would like to know what your opinion is of the Ontario government making a commitment to bilingual education and education, be it preschool right up to the secondary level, in both official languages and if that should be a requirement, and if you feel that it would help reverse the situation that we are presently experiencing regarding bilingualism to add in multiculturalism as well so that heritage can be continued and carried on. I am just wondering what your reaction to that would be.
M. Léveillé : Monsieur le Président, je crois comprendre que le gouvernement s'est engagé à donner aux francophones comme aux anglophones un système d'éducation qui va de la maternelle jusqu'à l'université. Je n'ai pas vu où on promettait l'université encore. J'ai vu où on a promis le collège ; il en existe un à Ottawa. J'ai vu où on voulait en promettre un dans le nord et dans le sud, mais on n'a pas encore touché à la question de l'université. Dans mon coin on ne pourrait pas, dans les conditions actuelles, offrir aux francophones tous les cours qui sont nécessaires à leur épanouissement et c'est le nombre qui fait la différence. Si le gouvernement pouvait nous donner les moyens de nous permettre l'éducation dans toutes les matières, on le ferait. Jusqu'à maintenant ça nous a été refusé, et c'est simplement les moyens financiers qui nous le refusent, non pas la volonté politique.
1020
Mr Malkowski: If I could have a supplementary question?
The Chair: Very briefly, yes.
Mr Malkowski: Do you want to see the programs, be they francophone or anglophone, separated, or schools be separated, or would you rather see them be together?
M. Léveillé : Il a été prouvé fois après fois et surtout dans un rapport dont j'oublie le nom mais qui date de 1986, que les écoles mixtes sont néfastes pour les francophones et je suis de cet avis. Si on en juge par les résultats que notre école obtient avec son éducation des francophones -- je pense aux 247 élèves qui sont assimilés présentement -- je ne vois pas là un grand succès.
RICHARD LOGTENBERG
The Chair: I would like to call now Richard Logtenberg.
Mr Logtenberg: Mr Chairman, members of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, my name is Richard Logtenberg and I am a grade 13 student at Lasalle Secondary School here in Sudbury. I have been closely guarding over the past year my views on the political and social climate surrounding the crisis of Canadian unity. However, given the opportunity to present my views before your committee, I felt the need to take to the stand and express my feelings on this vital issue. For this opportunity, I thank you.
On 1 November, Prime Minister Mulroney announced his creation of a new commission, a commission whose job it was to find a consensus among the Canadian people on the future of Confederation. As I am sure you realize, this is the Spicer commission, the federal counterpart to your committee. Now admittedly, Canadian nationalism in the true sense of the word has never been overpowering, but lately I have feared that it had almost completely disappeared, and if our Prime Minister has been forced to consider the feelings of the public on this issue, then the immediate situation must be worse than I have imagined.
Perhaps the reason for this loss of nationalism is that we have become affected by numerous internal and external influences. These influences have caused us to lose many of the values that once made us unique among people of the world. Of these influences, I feel the present Canada-Quebec separation crisis poses the greatest threat, for Canada's failure to responsibly deal with the language and cultural concerns raised by Quebeckers has led Confederation to the brink of collapse. Unless action is taken soon, the separation of Quebec from Canada will become an imminent reality.
However, I do not propose to be an alarmist without elaborating, without offering some possible solutions. But it must be remembered that before anything can be resolved, Canadians must become the great peacemakers and compromisers that we have long claimed to be.
Much of the unrest in Quebec today has its immediate roots in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period Quebec underwent the quiet revolution. French Canadian attitudes of what the good life was and what a proper society should be went through a transformation. Through mass-communication media, especially TV, French Canadians came to realize just how much English Canada had come to encroach upon Quebec society. The areas of Westmount and St James Street of Montreal became hated symbols of the economic dominance held by the English in Quebec affairs and industry.
As a result, Quebeckers began with a vengeance to demand the expulsion of English Canada from the upper echelon of Quebec society. By the nationalizing of many private electrical utility companies and their subsequent incorporation into Hydro-Québec, the then Premier, Jean Lesage, began to respond to these pleas. Hydro-Québec became completely managed and operated by francophones. The English-dominated white-collar job market became partially accessible to Quebeckers. However, the English remained the scapegoat, as they were blamed for repressing the French as well as for causing the slow decay of the French language and culture. This attitude has become a common sentiment throughout Quebec and has grown in time to a radical pitch. It has manifested itself in the Front de liberation du Québec, the Parti québécois and many other separatist organizations and institutions.
To aid in the restructuring of their own economic community and to prevent further radicalism, Quebec must be granted the power that it has long sought. I believe that this would help to ensure the fair and equal distribution of jobs and wealth in Quebec.
The resentment Quebeckers have long felt about the lack of control they have had over their own economic community has united them with a common purpose. This, coupled with a long historical fight for the preservation of their language and culture, has fuelled the fire of burning nationalism. With the resurgence of Quebec nationalism in the last few decades, Canada has become increasingly unstable and emotionally torn. Canadians have lost faith in their country, feeling it is simply a matter of time before we become either a weak and divided collection of provinces or just 10 more states under the control of good old Uncle Sam. As a result, English Canadians resolutely fear Quebec nationalism for the harm they perceive it will do to the nation as a whole. This fear, and the actions governed by it, are what pose the greatest threat to Confederation. For to fear, suspect and ultimately to suppress the values of one quarter of our population is not only dangerous, it is completely undemocratic and inherently ignorant.
What this does is encourage radical Quebec nationalism to grow and it promotes a hatred of Canadian Confederation. We will learn, perhaps too late, that nationalism is not something that cannot simply be dismissed. It will grow much stronger, more widespread, increasingly more radical and much less willing to compromise. As English Canadians, we must realize this and become willing to negotiate openly and wisely with Quebec. Proposals such as those outlined in the recently released Allaire report may be our last bargaining tool to keep Quebec in Confederation.
The Allaire report, which was commissioned by the Quebec Liberal government, set out to find through constitutional reform what was needed to ensure the preservation of Quebec's language and culture. Quebec politicians have argued that English Canada is strangling the Quebec culture. This belief is unfounded. The former control by the English of the economics of Quebec has little bearing on the present decline of indigenous Quebec art and culture.
It has long been said in many European nations that the artistic spirit of a country defines its culture. It is the creative output of its authors, songwriters and artists that is the pure and tangible form of the beliefs and values of a people. These works of art help people realize their common identity. The truly united and strongly nationalistic countries have therefore placed artistic and cultural growth as an important priority. Thus a country becomes identifiable to itself and to the world by its artistic and cultural works.
Quebec politicians, however, have failed to come to this realization, believing that the artistic community is a mere frill in the presence of a greater need, the preservation of language and culture. This is a completely self-defeating philosophy. Because they have encouraged the economic growth of Quebec, these politicians have unintentionally suppressed the growth of indigenous culture, for to play an active role in the North American economic community one must speak the language of commerce, this being English, not French. Thus the problem of assimilation continues to be apparent. To correct this contradiction, Quebec must first support its artistic community if it wishes to preserve its language and culture. This includes the promotion of literature, music, art, and especially television and movies. Quebec must be on the leading edge of artistic growth in Canada because, according to its politicians, it has the most to lose.
Ontario and English Canada as a whole must also promote this sort of artistic and cultural growth if Confederation is to survive. Among nations of the world, Canadian priorities concerning indigenous art parallel those of Third World nations. We have become complacent and satisfied to import American culture or, at best, to imitate it. As a famous indigenous Canadian author said, "The shape and nature of this country demand that the strong support the weak." If this means giving our presently weak artistic community a chance to grow, then we must allow it.
We must incorporate Quebec art and culture with that of Ontario, as well as that of each region in Canada if we are to discover the true Canadian identity. We have long claimed to support multiculturalism. It is time now to expand on and amalgamate what our many immigrants and long-standing residents culturally offer and revitalize the Canadian community. We must do justice to the fundamental uniqueness that makes us distinct among the nations of the world. Until this is done, the future of Confederation will always be in question.
I hope that your committee will bring my message to Mr Rae, and ultimately to Ontarians and Canadians everywhere, so that when decisions are finally made, the best interests of Canada will always be paramount. Thank you very much and good luck.
1030
The Chair: Thank you very much, Rick. I think, as we certainly have found in our travels throughout, that when we have young people speaking before us, there is a certain amount of clarity and precision in your thoughts that sometimes is missing in others, and thank you for that. We will have time for probably one question. Mrs O'Neill.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Richard, thank you so much for coming this morning. I certainly feel that you have added some very concrete thoughts that have not been presented before, two that I wanted to highlight before I ask you the question.
I think you are very accurate in your observation of the impression that fear has on people. I think it is one of the most debilitating of our emotions and I think that your explanation of what it is doing to our situation, both inside and outside the province of Quebec, is very accurate.
I also feel very strongly that your observations on the arts are very accurate, and I think the people, the actual Québécois, understand that. I think you are right that the government has not supported them in their desire, and I know that because of the riding I represent in Ottawa.
I would like for you to say a little more about the Allaire report if I would ask you to, because you have read quite a bit about that and I am very pleased because that is a pretty up-to-date document. Would you say a little bit about some of the things there, of the 22 requests for negotiation? Could you say a little bit about some of the things that you think are possible for us to share governance, province with federal government?
Mr Logtenberg: You mean you would like to know the powers that I feel that we can share?
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Could you say a little bit about it?
Mr Logtenberg: The powers that I feel that the provinces can share as under a federal government are basically the ones outlined in the Allaire report -- defence, external affairs, situations like this, monetary causes and stuff. I do not agree with the issue of transfer payments. Unfortunately, I feel that is going to harm a lot more provinces by making them complacent than it will by encouraging them to grow.
I feel that many of the issues that the Allaire report has outlined, for example, the concerns on energy, the demands for political autonomy, these types of things are important for the provinces themselves to hold, especially because of the situation we have with Quebec. So basically what I am saying is I accept the Allaire report. I accept what it has offered with a few reservations, but I feel that it might be our best bet at this moment.
Mrs V. O'Neill: Thank you for bringing us such an informed brief.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
FRED AND JULIE JOHANNES
The Chair: Could I call next Mr and Mrs Johannes.
Mr F. Johannes: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Our presentation takes 11 minutes and 30 seconds. Could you bear that?
The Chair: Okay. It is within the latitude that we have, that is fine.
Mr F. Johannes: My wife and I do not represent any particular interest group. We have had the privilege of living in three Canadian provinces and are fortunate enough to have strong friends in each of the 10 provinces.
Throughout the years, we have voted for all three major parties, sometimes jointly, sometimes cancelling out our votes. We are concerned about the obvious social, economic and political deterioration of this country. In our opinion, there are two things the Ontario government can and should do to halt the deterioration and promote a program of growth.
First, we ask that all parties commit to holding a referendum on constitutional proposals. Second, we ask for an Elections Act which makes elected officials more accountable to the electorate.
On the Constitution:
Meech Lake, as we all know, was drawn up behind closed doors without any public input. From its conception it was immediately endorsed by all three parties, not because it was obviously good for the country but because failure to support the legislation would be portrayed as a rejection of Quebec, and without Quebec support no party could hope to be successful at the federal level. The party leaders spread the word, and official support became mandatory throughout the country.
The legislation was touted as a major victory for the great conciliator. Inevitably, the weaknesses of the accord started to come to light. Trudeau, with no election to win, pointed out that it severely weakened federal powers; Carstairs drew our attention to the dilution of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Lalonde and Wells implied that it would give legislative powers to Quebec that would not be shared by other provinces.
At that time in Sudbury we talked to 37 people, 36 of whom were against the accord. We then took a train trip across Canada and we found out that the support in Sudbury was stronger than it was in the rest of Canada.
As Meech Lake approached its decision date, we heard Mulroney declare that eight provinces, representing 90% of the population, supported the accord. The truth of the matter was that 90% of the elected politicians were blatantly disregarding the wishes of their electorates. Nine premiers and the Prime Minister applauded each other as being great Canadians. They unanimously agreed, however, that in the future, Canadians should be given more say in constitutional matters, and then they remained silent as the Prime Minister manipulated the schedule to preclude any chance in Newfoundland for its preferred referendum.
Politics in Canada had reached a new high. Were we not proud of the way Lowell Murray and Brian Mulroney attempted to maintain the deadline in Newfoundland while extending it in Manitoba? Was this not honourable and fair? Would we not want our children raised to reflect such high ethics and morality? Were we not impressed with the manner in which the Newfoundland PCs bent over backwards to represent their constituents in the free vote?
Were we not envious of the three parties in Manitoba who had committed themselves to hearing all the representations of their citizens? And were we not even more impressed when they could make their decision before they heard the citizens? Did this not assure the people of Manitoba and their native leaders that their concerns would be properly assessed and given the consideration they deserved?
Meech Lake, for all its faults, has greatly increased the political awareness of all Canadians. We have learned that elected politicians have not been given the freedoms and authority to represent the views of their ridings; we have seen that the so-called free votes cannot assure true representation and that open hearings such as this are only useful in forming opinions.
There is one and only one way to guarantee that Canadians can be truly represented on constitutional matters, and that vehicle is the referendum. We request that all three parties agree to give the people of Ontario the right to vote by referendum on all constitutional amendments, and that this be enshrined in the Ontario constitution before the next constitutional proposal is tabled.
My wife and I prefer the Australian procedure on constitutional reform, in which the proposals are drafted by non-political institutions and passage is dependent on 50% referendum approval in each of the country's six states. Premiers should not assume that they have the right to represent their citizens on constitutional matters. Constitutional amendments must be designed for the benefit of all Canadians. We do not want our premiers vying for greater power at the expense of other provinces and other citizens. Just give us the right to vote.
1040
Mrs J. Johannes: On the Elections Act:
This country and this province have degenerated to the point where on too many issues our elected officials are not representing the majority wishes of their constituents. This situation exists at all levels of government, including the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Democracy appears to reign for the one day on which we cast our votes and is immediately followed by four years of dictatorship, with more allegiance paid to the big campaign contributors than to the electorate. Too often we see the big fund-raisers rewarded with high-paying patronage jobs with life-long indexed pensions, all paid out of public funds.
Not long ago, Lloyd Axworthy announced that he could not run in the leadership race because he could not get the necessary financing from big business because of his opposition to the free trade deal. It does not take much to extrapolate that the leaders of both the Liberals and PCs are backed by big business. It is no coincidence that we now have a free trade deal which gives major advantages to a multinational while promised relief to workers who lost jobs as a result of government policy remains virtually invisible. Extending the qualification period for unemployment insurance is not the solution preferred by the electorate.
Statistics Canada recently announced that the top 20% of our nation increased its share of the national wealth, while the middle class lost ground and the poor, as always, remained poor. The imposition of the regressive GST, which increases the tax burden on the middle- and low-income groups, is hardly the best solution to reverse this trend. These are not isolated incidences. Linda McQuaig's book, Behind Closed Doors, outlines in graphic detail how the rich and influential have manipulated the tax system so that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Canadians do not want the systematic destruction of their middle class. The previously mentioned legislation was passed in spite of overwhelming public opposition. If the elected politicians are clearly not supporting the opinion of their constituents, who do they represent?
At the provincial level, we learned that developers who enjoyed big government contracts were also heavy contributors to many of the candidates, while the major fund-raiser involved in the contributions was awarded a top patronage position. The same person was then charged with violations of the Elections Act. The extent of the scandal was then barred in the courts and conveniently removed from public scrutiny.
At the municipal level, I have sat in this very room when virtually 100% of a neighbourhood opposed a certain development, yet the development proceeded. Public hearings have become a charade. Every time a hearing is held on a disputable development, we can predict with great accuracy who will vote for its approval. The development always proceeds, the developer always gains, the affected neighbourhood always loses, and we have strip joints operating on the edge of schoolyards.
It should be obvious that we need an Elections Act which makes an elected official more accountable to that person's constituents and defends a candidate from undue influence from special interest contributors. We suggest the following:
1. Businesses and organizations should be specifically precluded from contributing to either a candidate or a party. Their money should be used to convince the electorate as to the validity of their interests and not to buy a politician nor to unduly influence their vote.
2. Only individual contributions from authorized voters should be permitted. The amount an individual can contribute should be restricted to avoid, to the extent possible, economic discrimination.
3. Election spending in a riding should be restricted to the amount raised in that riding.
4. An individual's eligibility to run in an election should be determined by his ability to get sufficient contributions to cover the administrative cost to have the person's name placed on the ballot.
5. There should be recorded votes in the legislatures to provide the voters with a better basis to evaluate the performance record of the politicians.
Please give these ideas your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr and Mrs Johannes. We will be able to allow one quick question. Mr Winninger?
Mr Winninger: I was intrigued by many of the points you so convincingly made.
The first concern was with the notion of impeachment of members elected. There was a concern expressed yesterday that if members are subject to impeachment during their term, they might feel hamstrung in that if they take an action it will obviously displease some of their constituents and please others, and those constituents that are displeased with the effect of this decision might seek to impeach the incumbent. So it would be a concern that perhaps the elected members would not be able to get the job done that they were elected to do if they had to be for ever accountable to different sectors of their constituency during their term of office.
The only other point I would make in reference to the referendum is, it sounds like a marvellous idea and it probably is as close as we can come to direct democracy, but I wonder how Quebec would fare in a national referendum, simply because the Quebec votes are so heavily outweighed by the votes outside of Quebec but inside Canada.
Mr F. Johannes: Try again on the last part.
Mr Winninger: The results might be skewed against Quebec, simply because Quebec only represents approximately one third of our national population. How could their aspirations be realized in a national referendum on our constitutional future?
Mr F. Johannes: I think you could follow the Australian procedure, in which each of the provinces must have 50% of the referendum. When the legislation is drawn up, the legislation will be drawn up to be passed through Canada. You will not have the diversification, the power struggles between the groups if it is drawn up for the good of all Canadians. I think Canadians recognize the legitimate concerns of Quebec as well as anybody; we have been told it a hundred times. But if Quebeckers do not like it, they have a chance to deny its passage by 50% vote in their province, just the same as we can eliminate outrageous demands by Quebec by 50% refusal in our province.
Mr Winninger: I see. Thanks very much.
Mr F. Johannes: By the way, we do not agree with impeaching any candidate. We just want him less influenced by special interest groups and we want him accountable to the voters.
Mr Winninger: I do not think any member would disagree with that point of view.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr and Mrs Johannes.
VINCENT DI NORCIA
The Chair: We move to the next speaker, Vincent di Norcia.
Mr di Norcia: I would like to thank the Chairman of the committee for not only giving me the opportunity to present these remarks but also allowing me to come at a time when I would not give my students a break from class at the university. I do not think they thank you, however.
I am speaking as a private citizen. However, I teach social ethics and political philosophy and what I want to do is to some extent address what I see as misshapen questions and some of the values involved in the current debate about the country.
I think we need to ask the right questions. To paraphrase the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard, you might find what you need." I think the real question is: What does Canada need? It is not: What does Quebec or Alberta or Ontario or Sudbury want?
Let me explain what Quebec wants, and this is based on my knowledge and my memory of documents going back to the Tremblay report, Options Québec, various reports in Quebec, including, although I have not seen it, except through the press, the Allaire report.
I think, to quote Daniel Johnson, Quebec wants "l'égalité et l'indépendance," both and more, and that is the problem. If you ask people what they want, they give you wish lists, only limited by their imagination. It is like the "gimme more" of a spoilt child, and I do not only mean Quebec there. I think it is all over the country. That selfserving approach is ruining the country. It is not convincing rationally, because it is impossible, or morally, because it comes from passion and desire rather than sound judgement.
1050
As Allaire, the PQ and Bélanger-Campeau tell us, Quebec wants everything, and more if possible. It wants sovereignty, with some help from Canada, and that is absolutely madness, in my view; it wants independence, as Mr Parizeau said the other day, without paying the debt of Canada, debt it must accept; and it wants independence or sovereignty with economic links. It wants to determine its future itself, but with our help. It wants a European Community type of economic union with Canada instead of freer interprovincial trade. This does not compute.
Quebec rejects federalism but also seeks post-sovereignty, to use Mr Bourassa's word, "supranational" structures, equal institutions for Quebec and Canada. This would be an unworkable nightmare and much less democratic than the current system. Quebec's distemper is all too bourgeois, a limitless, middle-class craving for more, without losing all the old comforts. In sum, to misquote General de Gaulle, "Un Québec vraiment libre," free. Give us a break.
The Allaire report deems Canadian social policies like medicare, the pension plan, environmentalism, etc, to be centralist threats to Quebec's autonomy. Does this mean only the Quebec state has moral validity, only its powers? It sounds to me like Duplessis is still alive and doing very well, and in fact it was the PQ who put his statue back up.
Nor has Quebec made a moral case for independence. I do not see any serious injustice proven, anything on the scale of what is happening in other countries, such as in the Russian republics, in Quebec. As an English Canadian who is bilingual and indeed trilingual, who has travelled around, I do not see any case that I am stomping -- in a bilingual institution, mind you -- on the rights of the French in Quebec. I see all kinds of problems. We all have problems. We all have difficulties, terrible difficulties. But I do not feel the government of Canada is an oppressive government, preventing Quebec from realizing its future.
Therefore I cannot accept an argument based on what Quebec wants. If Quebec proceeds in the current direction, what will we, not just Quebec, get? Disaster. A sovereign Quebec may be free to run her own affairs, but the predictable outcomes look all too bleak.
There will be no fourth level of federalism, not if this Canadian has anything to do with it. I pay enough taxes already. We will not have equal Canadian and Quebec institutions. They are more unworkable than the current system. It is a dual majority system. It is dead to start with, and if it is executive, it is less democratic. For people in Quebec who correctly criticize the current system for its complexity, to propose an even more complex system is peculiar.
Canada will need a corridor to the Atlantic. Will we get it? Regions opposed to sovereignty inside Quebec need not remain in Quebec. Northern territories like James Bay, granted to Quebec in 1912, need not stay in Quebec. Canadian assets, like Spar Aerospace, Bell Canada, CNR, federal institutions, etc, need not stay in Quebec. Free access to Canadian firms need not be given the Caisse des dépôts, which already has major interests in Canadian firms like Canadian Pacific.
Canada-Quebec relations need rest only on formal diplomacy and treaties as with any other state. Quebec will need to pay at least $80 billion debt. Quebec firms will need to work to gain access to Canada, and vice versa for us. Quebec unemployment rates, now high, will skyrocket. Quebec will need to negotiate her own trade deal with the United States and Mexico and perhaps Canada. Billions in Ottawa support for the Quebec economy including art -- we give more to Quebec arts than the Quebec government -- will dry up.
Both states, I think, will very likely face a serious recession, if not a depression, self-inflicted. Quebec will feel less pressure to clean up the environment. She is already one of the weakest provinces in the country in this respect. Cross-border pollutions will increase.
Unilinguality and intolerance, something which I detest, having grown up and seen enough of it in Toronto against people with names like mine, will grow needlessly. lmmigration will go through the floor and the best will leave the country. I think that is absolutely clear.
We will have two criminal codes, and just look at the Americans to see what that means for crime. Instead of Europe's 1992 move to more integration, we will have more disintegration.
These outcomes I have put forward because they are at least as inevitable as sovereignty is said to be by Québécois who favour it. Concern about consequences, which is part of ethics and rationality, needs to take hold in Quebec and in Canada. Indeed we both should reflect on what Canada needs, including Quebec, including a bilingual Canada, a Quebec with the rights it needs to preserve her society.
At this point in history we face an incredibly turbulent and unpredictable world, economically and politically. Canada does not need more demands for power from the provinces, including this one. We do not need sovereign tribes of Indians or warring fiefdoms of prime ministers or city fathers or whoever. This is already one of the most decentralized federations in the world. Self-inflicted further divisions would constitute une vraie folie, madness.
People are naïve to think that particularist passions can maintain Canada as a strong and healthy society. Instead they work to fragment Canada to the point that there is no country. We need to reinforce our strengths: a sound economy; I would add bilingualism; ethnic immigrant rights of the kind we have tolerated to the point, to this day; an educated, strong and well-educated people; healthy people through medicare; a sustainable habitat through better environmental regulations; etc.
We need to nurture our common interests and values, our cultural and regional identities as a group, a mutually supportive and co-operative group, not a constantly fighting bunch of prime ministers.
As a bilingual Canadian of Italian descent, an experienced traveller, a sometime resident of the United States and Europe, I maintain, and I think that is unarguable, that this is one of the best countries in the world. Why are we blowing it? I simply do not understand that.
I wait for an argument for Quebec. How are they going to be better off after we are all divided? In reality we all have only one choice, to hang together, to work together, to share our riches and build a strong country. No one else will do it for us in this world. That is it. That is the bottom line. We must clarify and strengthen Confederation and our commitment to Canada and clarify and strengthen our allegiance to the country, and not to Quebec, Alberta or Ontario.
By the way, I find it insulting to my intelligence and my probity that because I am an Ontarian, I support Canada. I am tired of hearing this either from Quebec or from the west. It seems to me across the country there are people who support their province and their country in the best way, and those who want a strong Canada are not necessarily regionalists from Ontario.
Now I am going to play a game here. Quebec says we should rethink federalism on the English Canadian side. Well, I will rethink federalism. Eliminate the provinces. Do we really need them? Eliminate four levels of government such as we have in this town. Eliminate four boards of education. Eliminate the higher taxes. Eliminate more net programs in our governments. Eliminate first ministers' conferences. Why not only have two levels of government -- Ottawa, the national government, and about 30 to 40 regions? It would be simpler and it would be cheaper. I do not know that it would be better. I just say if you want to rethink the federation, then let's really rethink it. I think the kinds of ideas about sovereignty we are getting are at least 25 years old.
But this is too much rethinking. What Canada really needs is a stronger federation. A few small suggestions:
The government of Canada should have the key international, legal, socioeconomic, technological and environmental powers needed for success in these difficult times. Canada should have ways of ensuring high educational, health care and environmental standards. Canada should have residual powers, not the provinces, so that Canada can adapt to change.
Provinces need only local powers, as was said 100 years ago -- I think it was correct -- like culture in Quebec. Each level must pay its own way. Maybe we should have separate taxes. Costly and confusing jurisdictional overlaps which are being attacked in Quebec and across the country by everybody, I think, must be clarified. We need more accountability of each division to its own citizens and that cannot be done under the current system. I am not sure we need very many shared powers and I would prefer federal paramountcy in most of them.
1100
One small point about the system: It is no longer an executive federal system. Since 1982 the Constitution can be changed by legislatures. Prime ministers are not necessary. They have no power to do it anyway. It is in the act; I cannot remember the section. This seems to me to mean that any Legislature of the country can put forward an amendment and that can go, then, to all the other legislatures requisite within the three years and the amendment is passed.
No more conferences; no more talk shops. Mind you, obviously negotiations and discussions would have to be done to ensure that the law would be the same law, but in the United States the House and the Senate have committees to iron out matters like that.
I think this would make a much more efficient federation. We already have it, but we do not have public hearings like this -- we need them. I think where there is deadlock, as there very likely will be -- as the previous couple mentioned -- some kind of reference to the people at that point, which might be a good way of breaking the deadlock.
In fine, Canadians need to live up to their highest social and democratic values. This is one of the best countries in the world. It can be better. The alternative, division and distrust, will only mean disaster morally and socially. If you try real hard, the Rolling Stones said, you might find what you need. The time has come for all of us -- Québécois, Albertans, Ontarians, natives -- to try real hard.
Mr Beer: We have had, in the presentations that we have received over the two weeks, this kind of dichotomy between a desire for a federal government that means something, that gives some sense to the country of Canada, and at the same time a feeling in many of the communities that people want to have more power, if you like, over their own lives, more control over what happens in their particular area. I can define that as small as a municipality or as large as a province or even a region.
It seems to me that this is where we always get caught and that perhaps when those in other parts of the country make the reference that you referred to about Ontarians always seeing themselves as Canadians, because after all we, in their view, control the federal Parliament, how do you see balancing, then, that desire for a strong country, a country with a central government that has some real power, and the equal desire of people to have control over their own lives and to feel that they can have a say in shaping those educational, health, social, whatever programs that are most important to them in their own communities?
Mr di Norcia: I think there are many levels of this. I will only address three. First, I think the party system is far too tight, and it includes all parties, including the NDP, everybody. There is just too much discipline and that undermines accountability to the people who elected the MPs. So all kinds of free votes with -- this is just a small point -- would make the -- the government should only fall on serious matters. That small change right there would free up the system to allow more accountability of MPs to constituencies. It is not constitutional; there is nothing in the Constitution at all preventing it.
Second, with regard to the division of powers, I really agree with almost everybody who has looked at the Constitution, that it is a mess and that it is extremely difficult for citizens even to know to whom to go. By the way, despite what I have said, what I am trying to do is say to Quebec that you cannot have everything, none of us can, but if you want to engage in an operation of clarifying the Constitution and making this a strong country, yes, with strong provinces -- the 30 thing was just a logical point. Yes, with strong provinces. We do have to clarify. That would help citizens to say, "You're responsible for education for the most part," although I think we need national objectives of some kind. But I would not want the federal government running education systems, for that very reason. Yes, the federal government is responsible for interprovincial environmental flows or whatever. In some way or other that has to be done.
The third point I think has been addressed by many people in many different ways and I think, again, it is shared across the country, and that is that the citizens cannot be left out of the constitutional process. That is it.
One final point that has bothered me a great deal personally, as a bilingual Canadian of Italian descent, is the confusion between two Canadian languages. When people oppose English in Quebec or oppose French in Canada, they are opposing a Canadian language, they are opposing their own country. It is an extraordinarily suicidal form of racism.
Quando io parlo Italiano, when I speak Italian, non parlo Canadese, I am not speaking Canadian, I am speaking an immigrant's tongue, and I am proud to be a son of immigrants. It does not bother me. But the rights of another language, the rights of English in Italy, the rights of Italian in Canada, are not the same as the rights of Italian in Italy or the rights of English and French in Canada. I think that is another point on which there is a lot of confusion.
There are problems with managing bilingualism, many of them. I think it is in many ways overdone and too costly. That is a separate point. But the principle is we have two languages. I was just in Washington. It is great to be a Canadian there for many reasons, and one of them is that.
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO DU GRAND SUDBURY INC
M. le Président : Je voudrais maintenant inviter, de l'ACFO du grand Sudbury, Michel Rodrigue.
M. Rodrigue : Bonjour. L'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario du grand Sudbury est heureuse d'avoir le privilège de comparaître devant le Comité spécial sur l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.
Comme vous le savez probablement, l'ACFO a été fondée en 1910 comme une association provinciale. Son objectif est de favoriser le développement et le bien-être des 500 000 Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens. Le conseil régional de Sudbury existe depuis près de 20 ans et a le même objectif dans le district de Sudbury.
Après des mois de débats publics sur l'avenir du pays, force nous est de constater que le Canada est à une étape délicate et déterminante face à son avenir. L'échec de l'accord du Lac Meech, les disparités régionales et sociales, le traitement réservé aux peuples autochtones, l'aliénation de l'Ouest et le mouvement souverainiste au Québec remettent en question l'existence même du Canada. Par nos propos, nous espérons apporter une contribution au débat actuel, soit les aspirations et les intérêts sociaux et économiques de tous les résidents de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération et la forme de Confédération qui est la plus apte à satisfaire les aspirations sociales et économiques des résidents de l'Ontario.
Nos valeurs communes : les Canadiennes et les Canadiens partagent un passé commun, cependant trop souvent celui-ci est incompris, méconnu on tout simplement laissé pour compte.
Nous pourrions reconnaître certains jalons de notre histoire, par exemple, les peuples autochtones sont les premiers habitants du Canada. Le régime français existe de 1534 à 1760. Le régime anglais existe de 1760 à 1840 et enfin l'Acte d'union de 1840 constitue la première entente politique entre les deux peuples fondateurs. La loi constitutionnelle de 1867, l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique, reconnaît implicitement l'existence de deux nations fondatrices. Et enfin, les Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens habitent le territoire ontarien depuis 352 années. Ceci n'est pas une liste exhaustive, cependant le rôle historique et honorable que les trois communautés nationales ont joué leur procure un statut constitutionnel égal.
Pour aller rapidement à nos recommandations : la constitution doit reconnaître les trois communautés nationales qui ont bâti le Canada, soit les communautés autochtones, francophone et anglophone. De plus, la constitution doit souligner l'apport des néo-Canadiens et néo-Canadiennes. La constitution doit en outre traiter des droits suivants :
1110
Au sujet des droits des autochtones : reconnaître dans la constitution les droits ancestraux des peuples autochtones et le droit à l'autogestion de leurs territoires et de leurs institutions. Nous devons redresser les torts commis dans le passé à l'égard des peuples autochtones.
En ce qui a trait aux droits des néo-Canadiennes et néo-Canadiens : reconnaître l'apport des générations successives des néo-Canadiennes et néo-Canadiens au développement de l'une ou l'autre des trois communautés nationales ainsi que reconnaître l'apport de la diversité ethnoculturelle.
Des droits linguistiques et culturels : au Canada, enchâsser le concept des deux nations fondatrices au niveau fédéral, ce qui retourne au bilinguisme et au biculturalisme officiels ; assurer l'égalité de traitement des deux minorités de langues officielles. À ce sujet, l'écart est présentement grand entre le traitement des minorités des langues officielles au Canada.
Par exemple, dans le domaine de l'éducation, seulement deux minorités de langues officielles possèdent des universités, soit trois au Québec et une au Nouveau-Brunswick. Les Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens souhaitent ardemment, et ceci depuis déjà plusieurs années, la fondation d'un réseau universitaire de langue française en Ontario. Les mêmes demandes ont été faites en ce qui a trait à un réseau collégial homogène de langue française. Au sujet encore, nous sommes malheureusement témoins d'une disparité entre les minorités de langues officielles au Canada.
De plus, il nous faut garantir aux deux minorités de langues officielles l'autogestion de la gamme complète des établissements homogènes nécessaires à leur plein épanouissement.
Maintenant, en ce qui a trait à l'Ontario : selon nous, il faudrait déclarer l'égalité des statuts aux communautés francophones, anglophones et autochtones de l'Ontario. Il faudrait aussi garantir la promotion de la minorité franco-ontarienne et l'autogestion de la gamme complète des établissements homogènes nécessaires à son plein épanouissement.
Pour conclure, les propos de l'ACFO ont pour but le respect de l'histoire canadienne et l'essor des minorités de langues officielles et des peuples autochtones au Canada et en Ontario. Le développement futur des minorités de langues officielles et des peuples autochtones au Canada, et particulièrement en Ontario, devrait se faire sur une base de développement d'espaces de vie définis par les membres de la minorité.
Un espace de vie, ça pourrait se définir comme un ensemble de conditions qui sont jugées par une minorité de langue officielle ou autochtone comme susceptibles de favoriser le développement de cette minorité. Un exemple simple : un centre sociocommunautaire incluant des cliniques, une garderie, des services familiaux pour les francophones de la région de Chelmsford, par exemple, pourrait constituer l'un de ces espaces de vie.
Enfin, indépendamment du format constitutionnel qui sera retenu ou choisi ou négocié, ce format devra, selon nous, tenir compte des aspirations et des intérêts des communautés nationales. En conclusion, nous n'avons pas abordé beaucoup le sujet de ce que la constitution devrait être, mais plutôt ce qui devrait être contenu indépendamment de la structure à laquelle on va s'attacher. Je serais prêt à prendre des questions.
M. Beer : J'aimerais poser une question spécifique, à la page où vous parlez des droits linguistiques et culturels, et surtout sur 2(A)2.1, au Canada. Vous avez suggéré que nous enchâssions le concept des deux nations fondatrices au niveau fédéral, bilinguisme et biculturalisme officiels. En écoutant les représentants des autochtones, ils nous ont dit qu'ils trouvent un peu offensive cette idée des anglophones et des francophones, qu'il n'y a que deux nations fondatrices. En effet, ils parlent de la première nation, et donc dans la constitution il faut comprendre ce fait et on ne peut pas parler simplement des deux nations fondatrices.
Deuxièmement, ceux qu'on appelle les allophones : les néo-Canadiens acceptent facilement le concept du bilinguisme et la reconnaissance des deux langues mais trouvent que, quand on parle du biculturalisme, en effet ça a le sens d'exclure, disons, cette troisième force dans notre pays.
Alors, je me demande s'il n'y a peut-être pas une façon de parler du concept des nations fondatrices et aussi de l'appui des droits linguistiques sans nécessairement exclure -- même si on ne veut pas le faire, les mots peuvent quand même causer des problèmes comme ça. Alors, j'aimerais vos réflexions sur ces deux points.
M. Rodrigue : Parfait, je suis tout à fait d'accord. On pourrait parler de trois nations fondatrices. On l'a présenté comme ceci tout simplement parce qu'on a traité des différents groupes séparément. On ne voulait pas sous-entendre que l'un importait plus que l'autre. Je pense que les peuples autochtones ont été peut-être les grands perdants dans le débat constitutionnel des derniers deux ou trois siècles. Alors, effectivement, on doit présentement reconnaître qu'ils sont un des peuples, une des nations fondatrices.
Cependant, pourquoi on l'a présenté de cette façon ? Ce que j'entends, et je ne prétends pas être un expert des peuples autochtones, c'est qu'ils ne demandent pas nécessairement le même type d'administration, le même type d'accès à des services ou la même forme d'accès à des services que les deux minorités officielles traditionnelles, si on veut le regarder comme ça, avaient demandé. En fin de compte, ce qu'ils demandent c'est ne pas une autogestion, c'est d'être capables de gérer leur propre milieu. Je parlais tout à l'heure d'un espace de vie. Ils veulent l'avoir, cet espace de vie parce qu'en ce moment on est près de les étouffer. Alors, c'est pour ça que je l'avais présenté comme ça, mais sur vos propos de fond, je suis tout à fait d'accord.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. My question deals with some of the activity which is going on in Quebec at this point in time. However one wants to characterize it, certainly it becomes evident that the status quo is no longer possible, but rather that there may be a move, a shift for more powers to the province of Quebec, not a separation as such but a distancing.
My question to you is, from your experience and through your organization, what would be the impact, in your opinion, on the interests and the rights of Franco-Ontarians, and francophones generally, in the event that there is this distancing, this moving away by Quebec from the rest of Canada?
Mr M. Rodrigue: I guess in that sense it is difficult to evaluate. What I would like to happen is possibly a situation where, as traditionally, Ontarians will look upon and be justified in keeping the concept of three national peoples, if you like. Concerning Quebec's éloignement, if you like, that may seem as a perception at this point, since they are far ahead in terms of thought process regarding the Constitution than where we as Ontarians or the rest of Canadians are.
So it seems to me that éloignement is not final and that it might be a good opportunity for us as Ontarians to speed up the process of evaluating how the Constitution has been good to Ontario and what Ontario requires in order to grow within Canada as it would be in the 21st century. So in terms of how it will impact on us, we see it as not necessarily negative but a positive at this point since it may speed up the process of indicating -- and I think most provinces are doing the same thing -- where we should be going, and there might be some new initiatives coming through at this point.
M. Winninger : Nous avons écouté les francophones, les anglophones et aussi les autochtones et il me semble que personne n'a encore balancé tous les intérêts respectifs si bien que vous. Merci.
M. M. Rodrigue : Merci beaucoup.
STERLING CAMPBELL AND LASALLE SECONDARY SCHOOL
The Chair: I would like at this point to give Sterling Campbell and some of the students from Lasalle Secondary School an opportunity to make a few comments to us. I gather they have a presentation that they would like to make. Mr Campbell, you can use any of the microphones down at that end.
Ms Brujic: Mr Chairman, on behalf of Lasalle Secondary School we would like to thank you with this small token of our appreciation.
The Chair: Our thanks on behalf of the committee to all of you from Lasalle and we look forward to our continuing discussions. We will no doubt hear more from you, we hope, and we invite you as students and staff at the school, as over the next number of weeks you discuss some of the issues that we were talking about here today, if you want to send us some of your views in writing, we would be happy to receive them. Thank you for the presentation.
1120
LE COLLECTIF POUR LE COLLÈGE DU NORD
The Chair: We proceed now to Jacques Michaud du Collectif pour le collège du Nord.
M. Michaud : Merci, Monsieur le Président. J'aimerais vous présenter Hélène Fontaine, qui est représentante du sous-comité sectoriel de la région de Sudbury.
Le Collectif pour le collège du Nord est heureux d'avoir l'occasion de faire connaître son point de vue sur le rôle que devrait jouer l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération canadienne. Le collectif désire remercier les membres du comité spécial, présidé par Tony Silipo, de s'être rendu à Sudbury afin d'entendre les opinions de la population de la région.
Mme Fontaine : On devrait d'abord vous expliquer pourquoi le collectif se prononce sur cette question constitutionnelle et le rôle de l'Ontario dans ce débat.
Tout d'abord le Collectif pour le collège du Nord estime que les franco-ontariens ont contribué de façon importante au développement de cette province, tant sur les plans politique, économique, social que culturel et ce depuis le tout début.
Selon le collectif, il est essentiel que les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes revendiquent et obtiennent leurs droits, qu'ils prennent la place qui leur revient dans cette province.
M. Michaud : Permettez-moi de vous expliquer le rôle, les objectifs, la mission que s'est donnés le collectif depuis ces débuts. Le Collectif pour le collège du Nord existe depuis deux ans et demi. Il est constitué de représentants de onze localités réparties sur l'ensemble du territoire du nord de l'Ontario.
Le collectif s'est donné comme objectif d'assurer la création d'un collège communautaire de langue française qui répondrait aux besoins particuliers de la collectivité franco-ontarienne. Afin d'obtenir l'appui et la contribution des divers secteurs de la communauté franco-ontarienne -- ces secteurs étant économique, technique, social, culturel et autres -- nous avons établi des sous-comités sectoriels dans chacune des onze régions du nord de l'Ontario. Les membres des sous-comités sectoriels sont appelés à se prononcer sur l'orientation de la programmation du futur collège de langue française. Ils proposent également une liste de candidatures en vue de la formation du conseil d'administration pour ce collège dans le Nord.
Mme Fontaine : Voici maintenant les objectifs du collectif :
1. Consolider le regroupement représentant les différents secteurs de la collectivité franco-ontarienne du nord de la province ;
2. Examiner les besoins de cette communauté en ce qui a trait à la création d'un collège communautaire de langue française dans la région ; et
3. Communiquer les données pertinentes aux intervenants concernés.
Afin qu'un plus grand nombre d'intervenants se prononcent sur l'établissement éventuel de ce collège, le Collectif pour le collège du Nord a organisé trois colloques. Le dernier, qui a eu lieu à Timmins les 25 et 26 janvier dernier, a réuni plus de 250 personnes intéressées par la question.
Parmi les participants de ce colloque, il y avait des représentants de la communauté en général, des membres du personnel des collèges communautaires existants tels que des cadres, des enseignants et des employés de soutien, en plus des étudiants, des délégués des associations Franco-Ontariennes qui s'intéressent à ce dossier, des personnes-ressources, des fonctionnaires, des ministères provinciaux concernés et du secrétariat d'État ainsi que des personnalités politiques et du monde de l'éducation.
Ce colloque nous a permis de faire progresser le dossier. En attendant que le gouvernement provincial annonce d'ici peu la création d'un collège de langue française dans le Nord, nous avons recueilli près d'une cinquantaine de propositions et de recommandations touchant la programmation et l'orientation du collège. Ces recommandations seront transmises au ministère des Collèges et Universités.
M. Michaud : Nous aimerions vous présenter notre point de vue face à cette question constitutionnelle et le rôle que doit jouer l'Ontario.
D'abord, il faut reconnaître que les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes ont une identité propre à eux, identité qui s'est forgée au fil des années depuis des générations, identité à laquelle nous tenons et dont nous sommes fiers.
Tout en faisant partie de l'entité ontarienne et de la grande mosaïque canadienne, nous tenons aussi à évoluer comme sous-groupe. Afin que ce sous-groupe puisse offrir à la province tout son potentiel, l'Ontario et le Canada doivent répondre à ces besoins particuliers.
Si on veut donner la chance à cette population d'évoluer sur tous les plans -- et les plans peuvent être personnels, économiques, sociaux et autres -- il faut reconnaître les particularités auxquelles elle tient. Parce que notre langue et notre culture font partie de notre propre identité, de notre être, il est essentiel que les gouvernements ontarien et fédéral prennent les mesures qui assurent à la collectivité franco-ontarienne son développement à part entière.
L'éducation est une première étape à cette évolution de population franco-ontarienne. Ainsi, le futur collège communautaire de langue française permettra d'offrir à cette clientèle une ambiance culturelle propre à son idéal.
C'est un début, mais qui aurait des répercussions bénéfiques à la suite ? Les étudiants et les étudiantes qui seront formés iront ensuite propager leurs connaissances et leurs expériences à l'ensemble de la communauté. Ainsi tout l'Ontario, et par le fait même notre pays le Canada, ne pourra qu'en tirer avantage sur tous les plans. Il ne pourra que mieux se développer.
Le Canada s'étant défini comme une nation bilingue et biculturelle, il doit maintenant faire preuve de sa sincérité. À ce chapitre, l'Ontario, la plus peuplée et la plus riche des provinces canadiennes, doit donner l'exemple. Elle doit donc reconnaître l'identité particulière des divers peuples qui la composent afin d'assurer au Canada une unité, un front commun. Par notre constitution on doit respecter ces peuples qui forment l'Ontario et le Canada.
En conclusion, si le Collectif pour le collège du Nord travaille avec autant d'ardeur depuis quelques années déjà à l'établissement d'un collège de langue française pour les arts appliqués et la technologie dans le nord de la province, c'est pour assurer une place au peuple franco-ontarien dans l'image pancanadienne. C'est pour que tous les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes aient la possibilité de participer pleinement au devenir de notre pays.
1130
M. le Président : Merci. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ? Mrs O'Neill, go ahead.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you very much for coming forward. I did not realize how organized you were to this point. I have the privilege of having la Cité in my riding of Ottawa-Rideau, and if I have ever seen a celebration of education, it was the day on which that school opened. I do not know whether you were there.
Would you tell me, have you got some contact with the personnel at la Cité and/or Algonquin? And I have one small question from your brief, if I may.
Mr Michaud: As you know, in our system the networking is very important and it is made easy in knowing that the college system in the French-language sector will be divided between three bodies, la Cité collégiale being in existence already, the college du Nord hopefully to open its doors in 1992 and the system that we are hoping to create for the southern part of Ontario.
It is very important for us to work at a network of accessibility programs in order to not duplicate the programs that will be put into place in our province. It is very important for us to create this link with la Cité collégiale and other community colleges that might be working at the same end as we are. So yes, there is a link between la Cite collégiale, the group working at creating a college in southern Ontario and our group, le Collectif pour le collège du Nord.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Well, you are working with excellent professional people, as you know. Could you say a little bit for me about, I think I am reading it correctly, the board of governors, on page 2? Are you suggesting that you are to that point that you are already looking for candidates for your board of governors? Is that a correct interpretation?
Mr Michaud: That is right. There are 11 communities that take part in our organization. These 11 communities from northern Ontario have a subcommittee such as ours. Hélène Fontaine is a member. Each one of these subcommittees has representatives from existing colleges, high schools, private sectors in business as well as government organizations in their community. These people have coordinated their efforts so that they can suggest to the government, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the people who should give a certain direction to this college. And these are the people who we will be submitting to the minister, Dr Richard Allen, on 25 February.
Mme Y. O'Neill : Bonne chance.
M. Michaud : Merci bien.
M. Beer : Nous avons aussi parlé hier de cette question, d'un collège communautaire. Est-ce que dans votre article vous prévoyez un centre comme la Cité collégial, ou plutôt un collège avec ce qu'on appelle de multiples campus ? Comment est-ce que vous prévoyez le collège du Nord?
M. Michaud : Je crois qu'il est assez difficile à ce point de déterminer au juste le modèle qu'on va suivre. Mais vous savez que la commission Bourdeau a recommandé certaines formules pour la création de ce collège. Il est certain que le Collectif pour le collège du Nord, son comité permanent, encourage énormément que le ministère des Collèges et Universités suive les recommandations de la commission Bourdeau. Pour ses recommandations, on indique bien qu'il devrait avoir un centre administratif possiblement composé de deux campus principaux et un nombre de campus satellites. On parle aussi beaucoup de l'éducation à distance. Vous savez que, ici dans le Nord, on a l'institution appelée Contact Nord qui pourrait venir aider à l'accessibilité de nos programmes dans le système collégial de langue française.
CERCLE DE RÉFLEXION SUR L'AVENIR DU CANADA
M. le Président : Je voudrais maintenant inviter le Cercle de réflexion sur l'avenir du Canada : Christiane Rabier, Gaëtan Gervais, Jean-Charles Cachon et Gaston Demers.
M. Cachon : Notre groupe a été formé de façon ad hoc en prévision de cette audience, il ne représente donc que les quatre personnes signataires. Nous avons décidé de réfléchir avec vous sur la situation constitutionnelle actuelle et sur l'avenir possible du Canada à la lumière de cette situation.
This group considers that it is necessary to rethink entirely, and I mean entirely, the Canadian constitutional arrangement. It recommends the establishment of a true Confederation that would respect the socioeconomic and cultural particularisms of the constituent entities, which would be new, redefined entities that would replace the current 10-province system.
The creation of a true Confederation implies a new distribution of powers between the different levels of government.
I will now answer the first four questions of your document in English and my colleague Christiane Rabier will do so for the next four in the French language.
First of all, what are the values we share as Canadians?
We first think that Canadians have once and for all to agree about their past. Governments must play a leadership role in making this past known and understood by all Canadians.
Once and for all, we have to recognize that the native peoples were the first settlers in Canada, that the French regime lasted from 1534 to 1760 and that the British regime lasted from 1760 to 1840, at which time the Union Act constituted the first political arrangement between the two founding people, French and English. In 1867, the British North America Act, known as the Constitution Act for the so-called current Confederation, was implicitly recognizing the existence of the two founding nations. To finish on this point, we feel that neo-Canadians should be strongly encouraged to espouse the thesis of the two founding nations and also of the ancestral rights of the native peoples.
Second question: How can we secure our future in the international economy? We feel that this country should ensure equal opportunities to all. It should ensure accessibility to schooling and training to all, French Canadians like English Canadians, from kindergarten to university. It should recognize that the Franco-Ontarian minority has a right to difference and to its own institutions, whether social, economic or educational. It should encourage the fulfilment of the Franco-Ontarian minority. It should also make room for the Franco-Ontarian minority, thus allowing it to fully participate in the economy of the province and the country. Do not forget that there are a number of ties that this community can secure which nobody else can, particularly with the Francophonie and the rest of the francophone world, and this country and this current province can draw a lot from that. We do not think it is the case at the present time, because of lack of institutions, lack of a university, for example.
Third question: What roles should the federal and provincial governments play? We feel that we should have a true confederal regime in Canada. Normally, the roots of a Confederation are a group of independent nation states that join together for common goals. We may have a Confederation at this point, but we do not have independent or autonomous nation states and we have to reflect on that. Therefore we will have to proceed with the restructuring of entities within that new regime, that new Constitution.
Fourth question: How do we achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples? We first have to recognize the ancestral rights of aboriginal peoples in the Constitution itself. We must repair the harm done in the past to these aboriginal peoples and the harm that is still being done right now. We have to recognize the right of aboriginal peoples to self-govern their territories and their institutions, and of course there will be a lot of details to be cleared out and discussed, but do not forget that we see this as part of the new political and geographical restructuring of the country within that new Confederation.
I will now let Christiane Rabier speak to you.
1140
Mme Rabier : Alors, à la cinquième question : quels sont les rôles du français et de l'anglais au Canada ? Nous considérons qu'il est nécessaire d'enchâsser le concept des deux nations fondatrices au niveau de ce nouvel agencement constitutionnel, c'est-à-dire essentiellement qu'on reconnaisse le bilinguisme officiel et le biculturalisme officiel parce que jusqu'à présent c'est beaucoup plus le bilinguisme qui a prévalu au plan officiel et non pas le biculturalisme.
Il s'agit aussi de reconnaître la part des nouveaux arrivants, des néo-Canadiens, en leur reconnaissant des privilèges, donc dans ce nouvel agencement constitutionnel, et il s'agit aussi de garantir aux deux minorités officielles du Canada, les anglophones et les francophones, l'autogestion de la gamme complète des institutions homogènes qui sont absolument nécessaires à l'épanouissement des minorités, que ce soit donc les minorités anglaises au Québec ou les minorités françaises hors Québec.
Essentiellement, ce que les francophones demandent en somme c'est du rattrapage, c'est de faire du rattrapage par rapport à ce dont les anglophones jouissent en tant que minorité au Québec, avoir donc tout un réseau d'écoles, de la maternelle jusqu'à l'université essentiellement en français.
La sixième question : quel est l'avenir du Québec au sein du Canada ? Il faut reconnaître que le Québec est le foyer de la nation canadienne-française, on ne peut pas échapper à cette réalité-là, il l'a été d'une façon historique et le Québec a encore un rôle à jouer dans ce nouvel agencement constitutionnel qui est à venir. Nous pensons qu'il est nécessaire d'instaurer un système suffisamment flexible. Le problème c'est que généralement on a tendance, pour reprendre un peu la réflexion, le mot de Daniel Johnson, l'ancien premier ministre du Québec : «Les constitutions sont faites pour les hommes et non pas les hommes pour les constitutions». En d'autres termes, les constitutions doivent toujours s'adapter à la nouvelle réalité.
Septièmement : quelle est la place de l'Ouest, du Nord et de la région de l'Atlantique ? Si on regarde un peu ce qui s'est passé depuis plusieurs décennies, on s'aperçoit qu'au Canada, finalement, dans la mentalité des gens il s'est créé un concept de régions et donc on propose un nouvel agencement constitutionnel basé sur les cinq entités régionales traditionnelles, essentiellement la Colombie-Britannique, les Prairies, l'Ontario, le Québec et l'Atlantique.
En ce qui concerne le Nord, les territoires du Nord-Ouest et le Yukon, essentiellement à cause de la particularité de ces deux territoires, à cause de la présence des populations autochtones, Inuit ou amérindiennes, il est évident que le statut de ces territoires-là, le statut du Nord d'une façon générale, du nord du Canada devrait être défini en consultations avec les populations autochtones.
Huitièmement : que veut l'Ontario ? À la dernière question du document qui nous avait été présenté, nous répondons qu'il faut créer pour le 21ième siècle un Ontario qui est prospère -- il l'a toujours été, il faut conserver cette prospérité ; un Ontario tolérant, un Ontario donc qui est capable d'affronter les défis du 21ième siècle ; un Ontario qui continue à jouer un rôle de leadership, qui assume ce rôle de leadership dans le débat constitutionnel au Canada ; un Ontario qui respecte les droits des autochtones à l'autogestion et au contrôle de leurs territoires parce que, historiquement parlant, les autochtones ont toujours été oubliés dans le processus constitutionnel ; un Ontario qui respecte aussi le principe des deux peuples fondateurs, les Anglais et les Français ; et un Ontario qui accueille les néo-Canadiens et qui les incite à épouser les principes fondamentaux de la Confédération en se joignant à l'un ou à l'autre des deux groupes fondateurs.
Essentiellement c'est ça notre vision de l'Ontario dans le débat constitutionnel, dans le nouveau processus constitutionnel.
M. le Président : Merci. Il y a des questions ?
Mr Martin: You made a wonderful presentation, obviously have put some great thought into pulling it together and that is reflected in the way that it has come out. I am struggling to put it into some context and trying to imagine how much potential it has to get out there and actually become fact.
This morning we heard some wonderful presentations from people, and the more I hear the presentations, the more I begin to feel that there is some hope, that there is a place where we can all come to some accommodation and Canada can continue to evolve. Mr Rodriguez suggested that this was simply the beginning of a dialogue. It was the first part of a forum and at this level we are simply listening to how people are feeling and not putting too much of the logistics together. And then we --
The Chair: We are running a bit short on time.
Mr Martin: Okay.
The Chair: Can we just get to the question, please?
Mr Martin: And then as well, we heard the history of Canada, and I think we are all pretty much aware of that. I guess what I am sensing at this point is we are stuck between two competing forces, one that wants to do what you have suggested here and move ahead and dialogue; another that wants us to get at it immediately because, if we do not, the country will be torn apart. Is there any resolution to that, those who are creating all kinds of obstacles to our coming together and moving ahead and what you want to do here and the time that is required?
Mr Cachon: I cannot embrace blocked situations in any way. I have been involved in all kinds of conflicts, whether labour or other kinds, and I think there is always a place at some point in time for negotiation and discussion, when all the parties are willing to trust each other and to speak to each other with honesty. I do not think there is anybody around this table who would disagree with that, and I doubt also that there are Canadians who disagree with the idea of dialogue. In fact, if you look at the current political situation in Quebec, it is fairly clear that even the staunchest indépendantistes are ready to say that they are open for business in any other thing but what they call sovereignty. One of our questions was in fact, are we against some kind of sovereignty, which would be maybe closer to what Quebec wants, for Ontario? Would people in the west, in the Prairies, not be interested in some kind of sovereignty over a number of jurisdictions? Would we not be happy to have much less conflict on various kinds of jurisdictions, whether they are economic or social or others? Are we not tired and sick of fighting for transfers and so on in the education area and the social areas? I think that there is a lot that we want in common, maybe not as provinces, but as regions.
1150
Mr Beer: I would just like to take the opportunity at this point to perhaps aid our collective memory and to note that among his other attributes, Gaston Demers was the provincial member of the Legislature for Nickel Belt, a Progressive Conservative member, from 1967 to 1971. I say that partly because I think it is good to see, Gaston, that you are still very much involved and have come forward this morning, but second, and perhaps even more important, we forget sometimes the progress that we have made in this province and in this country in the whole area of linguistic rights. As a rather young and green civil servant freshly out of university, I can remember working with Gaston on a whole series of initiatives, particularly at that time in the educational area, and while many people were involved in what was to come in the 1970s and 1980s, I think one wants to say thank you, Gaston, for all that you did back in that early time.
Mr Demers: We should add that we did not win them all. And it was 1963 to 1971, not 1967.
Mr Beer: Sorry.
Mr Demers: But that is all right. You too are getting old.
M. le Président : J'ai une question. De temps en temps je me permets, en tant que Président, de poser une question.
J'ai quelque chose que je voudrais clarifier. Vous avez dit que la nouvelle constitution doit s'adapter à la nouvelle réalité, et il y a quelque chose vers la fin de votre présentation qui me donne quelques problèmes et j'espère que j'ai mal compris. Vous dites, en ce qui concerne les néo-Canadiens, qu'ils doivent se joindre à l'un des deux peuples fondateurs. Dans un sens ça peut donner l'idée de certaines attitudes d'assimilation, et je voudrais que vous clarifiiez votre position là-dessus. Est-ce que j'ai bien ou mal compris vos commentaires ?
Mme Rabier : Okay, je vais clarifier. Ce qu'on veut dire par là, c'est que les groupes néo-canadiens contribuent énormément au pays, mais qu'à un certain moment ces groupes-là conservent une partie de leur héritage culturel mais en même temps deviennent des Canadiens. Donc, par ce fait même, ils deviennent soit des Canadiens francophones, soit des Canadiens anglophones. C'est dans ce sens-là qu'on veut le dire.
M. le Président : Il y aura certainement d'autres qui diront qu'ils ne deviendront ni l'un ni l'autre.
Mme Rabier : Mais on ne peut pas être --
M. le Président : Mais on continuera à en parler.
Mme Rabier : Exactement. Mais le point qu'on veut faire là c'est que chaque immigrant est un apport énorme au pays mais il ne peut pas rester immigrant toute sa vie et pour toutes les générations à venir. C'est ça qu'on veut dire.
M. le Président : Merci. Il y a d'autres questions mais il faut passer au suivant. Donc, merci bien.
We are going to pause just a couple of seconds to allow the students -- I gather their bus is waiting, so we are going to allow them to leave. While that is happening, if I could indicate that we have four other people who have asked to be able to speak to us, and again, as we tend to do towards the end of the block of time that we have, I think that the only way we are going to be able to do that is by asking those four individuals if they would please keep their comments to about five minutes. We are a little bit more tight for time than we had hoped to be, but that is the reality, which is obviously also good because it means that there is a fair bit of interest. So if I could ask the four individuals to keep their comments to about five minutes, then I would invite Ernie Checkeris to come forward.
ERNIE CHECKERIS
Mr Checkeris: Needless to say, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared. I had tried to get on your task force some time ago and sort of gave up, and there was some confusion with respect to which telephone number I was supposed to call. At any rate, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
I am of Greek parents. They were refugees from the Turkish nationalistic knee-jerk that took place at the end of the last century and arrived as ignorant refugees in Canada, could not read on write their own language and learned to read and write in a simple way in English.
My father established a business as a typical Greek, became a restaurateur, and he raised his sons and enjoyed this country of ours. I think I can speak for the sons of many immigrants who are put in the peculiar position of having to learn a third language, if you like, as well as carrying their own culture with them.
My parents were very proud to be Canadians. They never went back to visit. They could not go back to Turkey. They never visited Greece. They felt that this was their land, and it became my land and my brothers' land. I am concerned about the nation called Canada, because it was good to me.
Our parents taught us, because they were peasant farmers, that you do not just take from the land, you put something back. So my brothers and I have worked hard for Canada. I served in the navy. I became a businessman in northern Ontario and I have retired subsequently. I have been a school trustee for 43 years and I have enjoyed the opportunity to serve my country in that way and I want nothing else to do but do that, because I believe the real future we have rests in our kids, and that is what we are really talking about today. The Greek saying is, "We begin digging our grave when we are born and we hope we make it comfortable by the time we die." So the beginning is really the beginning of the end.
My concern is that we do not have a country here. We do not have a country. We have 10 nations under one flag, and two territories that want to become nations too, I suppose. Somehow or other we have to develop an attitude that says that we are Canadians.
We have two official languages, and that is okay. We are a multicultural group of people, various kinds of people, and we are receiving more and more all the time. How do we bring these people together? I suggest to you that as provincial politicians you had better take a damn good look at your attitude towards Canada as a whole, not the province of Ontario.
Ontario has been very fortunate. The Scots and the Brits and the Irish and whoever, the Poles and Italians and Greeks who built this province have left a pretty good legacy, if we use it right.
I guess a classic example, because it is current and people are not happy about it, is the GST. Why the GST? I was in business. I manufactured. I had to pay the federal manufacturing sales tax, and if I were in that position today, wanting to export outside the country, I would not want to have that 13%, 14% or 15% tagged on to my costs. I would rather do it another way. But instead of doing it as a nation, we compelled the federal government, which is in charge of a hell of a big deficit, to force the thing upon us. Instead of being, as provincial premiers, responsible to the nation as well as their provinces, they fought the federal government. This is only a classic example because it is new and we can remember it well.
Would it not have been better if the premiers had said, "Look, we have a deficit of several billions. We have to get rid of that deficit. Why don't we work it together? Why don't we collect it for you?" instead of having the federal government create a multimillion-dollar bureaucracy to collect it? Tag it on to your particular sales tax, pay a percentage to the government, keep a percentage for yourself for operatings costs. No, no, no. We cannot do that. We are provincial first, Canadians second.
Yet we want those transfer payments. Where do people think transfer payments come from, anyway? Out of the air? They are not apples. We do not pick them. We have to act as a federal organization.
Sure, it is a Confederation. If it is going to be a Confederation and continue to be a Confederation, it has to recognize two things. One is that the provinces are going to be different. It is obvious. The provinces have certain rights and certain desires. Let's negotiate them under that light. Let's talk. I ran a business with 40-some-odd people. Nobody came into my office and threatened me by saying, "If you don't do it this way, Ernie, I'm going to quit," because it was automatic they were gone. But if they came into my office and said, "Hey, I've got an idea here that will help the company. There's something that doesn't work well for the company and we're losing money on it. Let's sit down and talk about it," we talked about it, because it was good for the company.
The company in this particular case is called Canada, and if we are not prepared to fight, if we are not prepared to argue, if we are not prepared to talk, then I am afraid it is going to go down the drain. That seems to be the problem. That is why people get their hackles up when someone, a Premier or a commission or a province says, "This is what I demand, and if I don't get it I am going to hold a referendum and I'm going to leave." Boy, I have great difficulty restraining myself from saying, "Hey, buddy. Go."
1200
The concern I have is that we are not prepared to accept that kind of talk and sit down. Meech Lake, with its veto, was a crazy situation. God, do you not know what a veto means? I can give you a classic example, of a nation called Cyprus. When the British, the French, the Russians and the Americans left the Cypriots with a Constitution that provided for a veto for one eighth of the people who lived in that nation who were Turks, they met once as a Parliament. They had a democratic election. Everybody was happy: "Democracy has arrived in Cyprus." They sat down in the House of Parliament, modelled after the British system, and said, "We will now be democratic and we will administer this country fairly and equally." The first proposition that was put was a money bill, for customs, excise, income taxes, so forth and so on, the grease, if you like, to operate government. What happened? It was vetoed and they have never met since and they have never talked since. Now we have a green line there and we have UN troops keeping these two peoples apart because they just cannot talk. It does not matter who proposes what. If I do not like it, I veto it.
Vetoes do not work. Talk does. And it requires something I believe we were lacking in Canada. People are not prepared to face the truth. They are not prepared to be fair. They are not prepared to compromise. They are not prepared to submerge some of their interests and become a nation. So I am quite concerned about my country called Canada.
Ontario, the engine of Canada, is a strong province and I would hope would speak strongly in favour of talk, rather than go away. I do not want Quebec to change. I was talking to my friend Gaston Demers earlier. We meet quite often in Quebec City. I would never want Quebec City to change. I want it to become even more francophone. It puts me in the peculiar position of leaving Ontario and visiting a province that is different from mine, and I enjoy the difference. I enjoy the Gallic attitude towards life. I do not want them to change; it is the last thing I want them to do. I want them to remain, if they will, but I am not prepared to take a threat that says, "I'm going to leave if I don't get what I want." Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Checkeris.
WANDA FLIS
The Chair: I will move on to Wanda Flis.
Miss Flis: Good afternoon. I come before you as an average loyal Canadian who, as a young girl, made her two brothers stand at attention whenever the national anthem, O Canada, was played on the radio before Foster Hewitt's Hockey Night in Canada. I felt a thrill of pride whenever I heard the words "our home and native land, the true north strong and free." I shall always remain a loyal Canadian, but my faith in the integrity, the strength, the fairness of our government has been sorely tried and assailed by its unjust and divisive policies, by its implicit acceptance of Quebec's gospel, "I am a Québécois first and a Canadian second." Should it not be, "I am a Canadian who happens to live in Quebec"?
I am not well versed in the jargon of politicians. I am not skilled at using words with double entendre, so I speak to you in terms that come from me, the innermost of my Canadian heart: Mon pays, il y a longtemps que je t'aime.
I feel that the main problem facing Canada as well as Ontario today is three-dimensional: to restore and limit government to its true function; to deal with the mounting deficit that was brought about by irresponsible spending on unnecessary programs that undermine personal responsibility, initiative and competitiveness; and to encourage the development of a nation of self-reliant, self-motivated Canadians.
The state, by offering so-called protection, often done to assure re-election and to buy votes under the guise of social safety nets, has become more and more responsible for all aspects of an individual's life: his job, his education, his retraining, his lack of self-control and, yes, even his failures.
Many have gladly surrendered the responsibility for themselves and have come to regard the state as the great provider of all things. This has resulted in the growth and proliferation of government programs and agencies, to the point where it is now the largest employer in the country, and has created perhaps a nation of deliberate, contented underachievers. Therefore, I think we need leaders who will restore government to its true function, and in my simple terms it is to provide a safe environment free from physical and chemical assaults, where justice and equality of opportunity prevail and where each individual is free to determine and shape his success by the amount of personal effort and dedication he is willing and ready to contribute.
Official bilingualism, the two founding nations, multiculturalism, are very divisive and therefore should not be supported. The British North America Act recognized the French factor by making provisions for the use of French in the federal Parliament and in the courts. There is no need to have French used in every government-related department across the nation. Why do we need a commissioner of official languages? Why are there no anglophone offices of anglophone affairs? One province has already made a mockery of bilingualism, and nothing has been done. Pay equity is also a mockery when French-speaking employees in Ottawa are paid more. Language, and not excellence of work and performance, has become the criterion for employment. Francophones, anglophones, allophones, neophones are words that segregate and divide. They certainly do not unite us Canadians.
Canada has been built by successive waves of immigration from various parts of the so-called Old World. The early French settlers came here as loyal subjects of the French king. They were working for him, so to speak, as colonists. When their king abandoned them, when he ceded them to Britain in the Treaty of Paris, the colonists were free to make a conscious choice. Article 4 of the Treaty of Paris guaranteed the French inhabitants the opportunity "to retire with all safety and freedom" if they did not wish to remain in British-held territory. Some 4,000 to 5,000 returned at the expense of the British government, so that none needed to remain for the lack of means to travel. Those who remained, therefore, were ready to accept their new status as undifferentiated subjects. They accepted the laws, the institutions, the limitations of the practice of their religion, as far as the then laws of Great Britain permitted. The British government was more than generous and tolerant in its administration.
Furthermore, on 11 March 1865, at the Confederation debates which resulted in the BNA Act, the combined assembly voted 91 to 33 under the rule of the double majority to accept the principles and objectives of Confederation. By that vote, the parliamentary representatives of French Canada reaffirmed their allegiance to an undifferentiated citizenship. The fact that the French were here earlier than the others should not make them better and more privileged citizens of Canada. They are just one of the many groups who founded and developed a specific area of Canada.
Canada is part of a new world, a new country where people saw new opportunities and the chance to escape the often oppressive regimes and caste-like societies of the Old World. Canada's freedom, Canada's tolerance, allowed them to practise and to carry on their different ethnic traditions, language among them. But many of these ethnic groups will readily agree that this preservation should be done by the people themselves and at their own expense. To do it otherwise is not logical nor fair. Money and laws do not preserve culture, for the more laws, the less justice. And money can only preserve the outside trappings and not the personal desire and need to be conscious of one's ethnic origin. Primary allegiance is given to Canada. If anything, Canadianism and not multiculturalism should be propagated. For example, why can we not have historical figures and not the Queen on our coins? I think that Canadianism should be propagated.
The Chair: Miss Flis, if you would sum up, please.
Miss Flis: All right. The aboriginal peoples need to be taken into consideration. I will not go into the sharing of powers; I leave that to the experts. Granted, times change, and it is time to take a long, hard look at the Constitution. However, certain principles remain timeless, and because of their innate wisdom I hope they are not overlooked. Unity is one, not two. A house divided cannot stand. The whole is greater than the parts. Laws do not preserve culture, people do. The more laws, the less justice.
1210
The Chair: Thank you, Miss Flis. There are a number of points that you made which I am sure many members of the committee would like to get into a discussion with you about, but time unfortunately does not permit us to do that.
Tom Taylor? Is Mr Taylor here? All right. And George Cast?
GEORGE CAST
Mr Cast: Mr Chairman, members of the select committee, good morning. My name is George Cast. I am a resident of Valley East, Ontario. I am fortunate to be here today, due to the lack of notice that has been given to the people, the same problem I spoke about when I came for the companion resolution after Meech. People are ill-informed. I phoned the office of my MPP, Shelley Martel, just the other day when I heard about your being here to find out a bit about it. They had a really hard time giving me anything on it. I had to do the phoning myself through the phone numbers through Toronto and such. Her office had nothing concrete. I gave them all day, showed up later -- very poor information, a couple of press releases twice in the Sudbury Star, little ones.
I do not know what our press is doing. They have to have a release. The press in our community is at terrible fault here for getting the information out and getting the people involved. They have a bit of responsibility as well. You get more notice for a death. At least you get it printed every day for a while. Or a notice of dissolving a partnership; we get this every day for a while. You can laugh. This is true.
This committee is built on a farce. The time is ridiculous here. Come election time, gee, I will hear from my member of Parliament. God, she is at my door, she is ringing me on the phone, I see her at the barbecue. God, she is getting her hair done; there is a crowd around and the press is there. We do not have a problem getting to the people when it comes to getting ourselves elected here, but we really have a problem getting out to our constituents over the rebuilding of our country. It is obvious. The groups come up, they are prepared. They were there prepared for Meech Lake. They were notified and invited to Meech Lake. They were invited to the companion resolution. They just had to dust off their résumés and kind of just make a couple of alterations. But the citizens have not. We have not been given reasonable notice or reasonable time allotment to appear before you.
This also applies at the federal level. Mr Rodriguez, I am glad you are here today. I phoned your office over the Spicer commission. They did not know the 1-800 number. He had to look it up for me. I got it before he got back to me the next day. They had no particulars. I will gladly address that with you after, if you like. So on all levels the government is really at fault for getting this out to the people.
Regardless of the time schedule for other provinces, Ontario can take the proper time for this process. Canada will wait. We do not have to answer an ultimatum from some other province. When it comes to the committee, you can understand why some people would not be here, besides improper notice. We had a lot more up here, now that the students are gone, for the companion resolution. Although it was a small ad, a few more ads than we had for this one.
And if the press remembers, it was quite full in here with adults and people with presentations. Unfortunately, I could see those people being disheartened. I am not sure how many of you elected officials were -- could I have a raise of hands of the ones who were elected who voted for the companion resolution who are here, who are MPPs? Just one voted for it?
The Chair: There are a number of new members on the committee.
Mr Cast: A number of new members, okay. I apologize for you, that hopefully you have more in mind to deal with the people than your predecessors had because most of Ontario -- it was obvious through that committee -- that had presented to that committee were opposed to the companion resolution. Our House of assembly goes back and votes 95-10 in favour. Of course, they did not make a big deal of putting that knowledge out, and they gave for the reason that the people did not have time, they did not get to enough people. Well, this committee has less time, or no more time than that committee did. What makes them think that they can get a better cross-section of citizens, I do not know. The excuse for time, it should go back and redo it. Give the citizens a chance to speak.
As a Canadian, just to touch on a few of the points, I have had one night to kind of try to fight to get one of these discussion papers from an MP's office, which was an all-day session. So by the time I got it last night as their office closed, it did not give me a lot of time to go through the points. But as a Canadian, I feel we value our freedom of speech and expression through our elected officials. Elections -- we get the freedom to elect, but geez, our officials shortly after forget that. We do not get the freedom of expression. They do not come back to the people. This is the largest issue that has come up since I have been born -- the restructuring of a country, of your province. I do not get any phone calls. I do not get the knocks at the door. They are not out there trying to reach us. They do not want to know. They are out busy speaking their own minds and their party line.
I hope that we keep our values, such as our social safety nets, our health care, our welfare, our UIC. We value the right to speak the language of our choice. There is no place in Canada for Quebec's Bill 101 and Bill 178. To do with our future in the international economy, it needs to be protected, I feel, much as it says in the report, through the education, proper resource management, research and development. These have all been promised so many times, but they have not come through. We have not seen the amount of money we need allocated to, especially, education to help us cope with the free trade issues.
I feel a central government is important, but again, as many people have said, especially the people coming up on their own, citizens, we need a revamping of our system: how the federal relates to the provinces; our tax systems need to be overhauled.
On the issue of aboriginal peoples, I believe they should have their form of self-government and I believe the government should settle their land claims quickly. They have been dragging their feet since the beginning of this country -- a little haste to get this accomplished.
Back to the languages, I do not see any problem with provinces setting what their official language is, but you cannot tell people what to put on their signs, you cannot tell kids what language to use in the playgrounds. The basic rules are there. Other than Quebec's problem, as I say, Bill 101 and Bill 178, I do not really see us having a language problem. If Quebec cannot see eye to eye with the rest of the country on these issues, then it will have to make a decision, but in Ontario we have to decide what we feel is right for our country as a whole -- our values, our freedom of expression, free speech, the social things.
My main point is that we just have not had time, the citizens, as you can tell by the erratic setup of this little speech, which I basically had to put together while waiting. We have not had time and I really hope that this committee will go back and tell the assembly that Canadians, but especially we in Ontario, would like time to have our say. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cast. Let me just say on that point, because you spent a great deal of your time talking to us about time, we realize that the time lines that we are working under for the interim report are shorter than we would have preferred, but we want to stress that this is for us the first stage of our work and that we have been hearing so far from a very good cross-section of people in the places that we have stopped, and we do have a full list of people to talk to us this afternoon and this evening here in Sudbury.
But we are the first to acknowledge that much more discussion needs to happen and our mandate does not end until the end of June. What we are supposed to do by the end of March is put together an interim report. We will then be looking at how we can structure the discussions in the second stage so as to involve as many people as we possibly can. So we are quite conscious of the points that you are making and we are looking at ways to ensure that.
Mr Cast: Yes, I see that, but June just does not cut it. Look at the time that Quebec has given to its people. We have three million more people than they do and they have far more time that they have already addressed to their issues. What is with Ontario? We get four months to put it all together.
The Chair: Well, that is the time line of the committee.
Mr Cast: That is my point.
The Chair: That is not necessarily the time of the whole process. Obviously the discussions will continue way beyond our mandate as a committee.
Mr Cast: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think with that then we will recess at this point until 3 o'clock this afternoon, when we will start the afternoon session.
The committee recessed at 1221.
The committee resumed at 1509.
SUDBURY AND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION FOR ENGLISH RIGHTS
The Chair: First is Bill Stewart from the Sudbury and District Association for English Rights.
Mr Stewart: Let me say at the outset I am pleased that the province of Ontario is going to listen to the common folk. I am, however, sceptical that from the political point of view this is nothing but window dressing. However, since we are here and since a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step, let us take the first step night now.
By way of introduction, I am 70 years old and a confirmed optimist, an electrician by trade and a construction one at that. I have worked at Come by Chance, Newfoundland, and Powell River, BC, and many, many places in between. I have not worked in the province of Quebec; my interprovincial licence is not accepted there. It should be noted, however, that all other provinces accept the Quebec licence.
I have spoken French since the age of six. I spent four years as an air gunner in the Second World War and was decorated by the King of England and the Queen of the Netherlands. I ran for member of Parliament in the Nickel Belt riding, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, 1955. Active in union mining circles, I was steward, chief steward, vice-president of 17,000 miners, compensation and welfare officer, and I held other posts. I organized the famous or infamous John Diefenbaker demonstration at Chelmsford in 1958. That is enough about me.
I am going to give you some of the local history here. Sudbury and district, it could be said, was the model for all of Canada to emulate. Blessed with nickel and copper ore deposits, mining companies sank shafts and built processing plants, this in an era of heavy manual work. People came from all over Canada and, if they were in good health and weighed 145 pounds and more, went to work. The ethnic peoples of our land were particularly here in large numbers. They built churches and recreation halls and kept their cultures alive and well.
The Canadian Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers organized the nickel workers, and these ethnic people were the backbone of that union. Your workplace then was just as safe as you and your partner could make it. Expressions such as "stubble jumper," "herring choker," "limey," "Frenchie," were used not in a derogatory manner, but in a manner that was acceptable to the person we gave it to. A term perhaps would be affectionate. Yes, Sudbury and district was truly a place to be. To all intents and purposes, harmony reigned supreme and all people contributed their share.
From a personal point of view, when my oldest child was ready for school, I enrolled her in an all-French school. All went well until I discovered that along with French she was saying the beads and adopting values not acceptable to me. She then went to a public school and majored in French and has taught French in a French high school.
Things changed drastically in Sudbury for two reasons. First, the mining industry mechanized and the output per man more than multiplied by 10. The other major volcano in this land was when Lester Pearson made Canada bilingual and Quebec made its province unilingually French in 1967.
The other legislative restrictions on the non-French in Quebec added fuel to that fire, and Ontario put another log on the fire by the French Language Services Act. Suddenly, one segment of our society has a monopoly on public service jobs and the service jobs in the private sector as well. "Must be bilingual" became the order of the day, and to this date, bilingual means mother tongue French, and make no mistake about that.
This is not acceptable in this non-French-majority province. They make up about 5.6% of the population, and that is just not acceptable. Promotions based on bilingualism, not ability, are not acceptable. Promotions in the armed forces above a certain level if you are not bilingual are not acceptable. I was a flying officer and that had nothing to do with whether I spoke French, and this is causing the friction here. McDonald's started a fast-food and I talked to the woman. She proudly told me she had 22 bilingual people there, but I asked hen how many could speak only English and she said, "None."
The following is what I believe must happen. À part cela, je veux dire que je parle français tout aussi bien que je parle anglais, mais je vais parler anglais ici. I just wanted to make sure you understand that I could speak French.
The following is what I believe must happen, based on an intimate knowledge of the forces driving the ordinary French person. Quebec must separate and the sooner the better. Only an imbecile would not know that a Quebec politician must find, between dinner and supper, another set of demands to ask English Canada. History tells us that no two nations and no two cultures ever survived; they always separate. I will give you a couple of examples: Norway and Sweden, India and Pakistan. You think we are going to be any different? No way, and the sooner the better.
I pray every night. I am not a very religious man but I do pray. I pray every night that they do separate, and the reason for that is so that the rest of us can get together and have a united, prosperous Canada, instead of the whining that has gone on for the 70 years I have lived in this land. French Canada cannot any longer expect civil service jobs as a monopoly and the service jobs outside of the public service can no longer be the sole property of the French. It is not going to work that way. No, the free ride is over.
I will give you a classic example. I come from Chelmsford. The non-French make up 38% of the population. The township workforce is 54 to 4. The public library is 10 French, 0 anglais. In the post office, c'est 4 français, 0 anglais, 4 French, 0 English. I am not saying something here that I did not go to council with. I told them that we pay the taxes and we are entitled to, as the French believe they are entitled to, jobs. I did not get very far, I might add.
In conclusion, I am going to list the personal injustices that happened to my family. I have a son, Scott, an electrician like myself. He applied for a job at Laurentian Hospital. They had a competition and I am proud to say that he finished on top. He was awarded the job and he was on cloud nine. Four days later, they called him up and said, "Scott, you don't qualify." Guess why? Because Scott cannot speak French as well as I can. This was an English, Protestant hospital that was founded by the English. A little digging found out that the supervisor was French and the other two people working there were French. That is not going to keep going on.
1520
I have a grandson who put a sign up to cut grass in the summertime, parks and recreation, 16 years old. He went over and they told him that he did not qualify because he did not speak French -- to cut grass.
What I am expressing now are my own personal views. To keep Canada together, civil service jobs must be allocated by the percentage of the nationality in that province on this land. They cannot be the exclusive property of one group.
It does not take an Einstein to figure out there are 10 people working in our library in Chelmsford. At the counter, there should be a sign, "En français ici"; on the other side, "Service in English." But no, they all have to be French. By the way, I should tell you Chelmsford was founded by the English: Rayside, Balfour, Dowling, all English names. Like the passenger pigeon, it looks as if we are going to disappear from there.
Being 70 years old and involved in politics all of my life, I have some views on what is going to happen. Here is what I want to happen. I know Quebec is going to separate, but I want a committee formed of English people to find out exactly what it is going to separate with. I do not want them to leave with one square inch of property more than when they came into Confederation.
I was a game warden in the far north and I am aware of vast tracts of land -- well, take James Bay I. James Bay I floods vast tracts of the homelands of the Inuit and the Indians. I do not know what you know about Indians and Eskimos, but in their own environment, they are majestic people. I will give you an example.
This great white man started out with a dog team which he had seized from an Indian and had not enough brains to guard against snow blindness. I found out I was going to go snow blind. I knew the minute I did those dogs -- they were huskies, part wolf -- would eat me, so I shot them. I made myself a snow hut and I climbed inside. I was warm in there, I had my eiderdown. The most beautiful sound I have ever heard in my life is the sound of dogs coming with the Eskimos looking for me. I do not think the white people would do that, but I am not anti-white, that is for sure.
But what is happening up there? If you are observant at all in southern Ontario, you will see that the Arctic owls are coming down, something we never saw before. And why? Because there are no more lemmings up there, where James Bay I is. There are no more Arctic foxes. The geese, when they fly north now, have to shift, because where they nested is under water now.
James Bay is going to flood the other half of that Arctic land, and nobody opens their mouth. What is it for? I do not know if you know it or not, but James Bay I is to sell power to the Yanks. I do not give a damn about the Yanks. That is my heritage up there and yours, whether you know it or not, and James Bay is going to double that land. It does not belong to you and me; it belongs to the Inuit and it belongs to the Eskimos. But no, because the great French say, "We want it," nobody dares say no. Well, somebody has to say no, because it is just not going to work.
Getting back to Quebec: When they separate, I do not want them to take one square inch of land more, and I do not think any other of the nine provinces and the two territories do. They will go out with what they came in with, but it has to be on the table for you people here to look at and for me to look at and for them to look at. Then if they want to separate, good. All the land south of the river, if you will check, was settled by the English, and that stays with us.
Put it on the table and call their hand. If they want to go, you are looking at the most happy man in the world, because I know it is never going to work any other way.
Myself, I moved into Chelmsford in the 1940s, speaking the language a bit. I could not have had a better neighbour. There was not a bigoted bone in their body at that point in time. You, sitting around the table who are judging me, you know who pushes bilingualism and French in this province. If you do not know, you should not be sitting here.
All of a sudden, it changed. And it is a shame.
I lived there for 40 years. I walk down the street now, and my grandsons and my sons. I am moving to Sudbury. At 70, I am too old for that kind of crap. I am going to move in here. After 40 years, when you walk into the post office and a hush comes on the group around the table and they do not talk, you know where the hush comes from.
It is up to you. Let me point the finger right at you. It is up to you to make damned sure that when the cards are on the table, the land mass that is Canada that belongs to the non-French is right to the inch.
I do not have a great deal more to say, except that there is a young lady who went to school and became a social worker. Her name is Joyce Danis. She graduated in 1986 and since that time she has had but two jobs. The reason she cannot get any more is that you must be proficient in English and French. Incidentally, that is why the workforce in Chelmsford is at 63 to 4 now. They posted the jobs for years and years: "Must be proficient speaking and reading French." That is the way it changed and nobody said nothing. She has kept a logbook. I would like you to pass it around and see what she is talking about. She has done a real good job.
1530
The Chair: Mr Stewart, if you can sum up, please, because we are getting to the end of the time.
Mr Stewart: What I am saying here I have said in other places. I charged the mayor and councillors with racism, because that is what it is. I had to deal with the most Mickey Mouse outfit you ever saw in the municipal building here. A man was fired because he was English. He was the roads superintendent, a civil engineer. I wrote it all out and I gave it to them up there. This Campbell man, his answer came back -- a person who was vice-president of 17,000 miners: "Mr Stewart believes that Dave Crook" -- I will name him -- "got the job of civil engineer" --
The Chair: It is really not appropriate for us to get into those kinds of individual situations.
Mr Stewart: Well, thanks for your time.
Mr Bisson: There is a question, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: No, we are going to move on.
LÉO THERRIEN
The Chair: Is Léo Therrien here? Go ahead.
M. Therrien : Je remercie la commission pour me donner la chance de parler aujourd'hui ici. Mon nom c'est Léo Therrien.
Je suis originaire de Opasatika, petit village dans le nord de l'Ontario autour de Kapuskasing. J'ai fait mon secondaire à l'école Cité des Jeunes et à Kapuskasing aussi. J'ai fait mon université à Ottawa et l'Université Laurentienne ici à Sudbury, donc dans deux institutions bilingues. J'ai aussi gradué à l'École des services sociaux à Laurentienne et je travaille maintenant depuis six ans dans le développement international ; j'ai travaillé pour un organisme en tant qu'animateur dans le nord de l'Ontario et maintenant je travaille pour un centre d'éducation globale bilingue ici à Sudbury, dans le but de sensibiliser les gens aux problèmes du Tiers monde, ce qui fait que pendant six ans c'est le domaine où j'ai travaillé, dans le développement international. Je vois la situation au Canada plus d'une vision globale, c'est-à-dire une vision qui touche plutôt toute la planète. Aussi, je parle ici en tant que Franco-Ontarien et non au nom d'organisme.
Je pense que, pour comprendre la situation ici au Canada, il faut retourner aux racines du problème, soit aux antécédents au début du pays. Il y a des principes de base qu'il faut d'abord accepter que j'accepte moi aussi, d'abord que les premiers habitants du Canada sont des autochtones. Il faut détruire ce mythe des deux peuples fondateurs des francophones et des anglophones. Ils n'ont rien découvert. Il y avait déjà des populations autochtones ici au Canada auparavant. Donc, s'il y a des revendications qui doivent être écoutées ce sont celles des autochtones.
En 1867 la Confédération a été créée, acceptant la coexistence des deux peuples francophones et anglophones ainsi que l'existence des peuples autochtones. Ce Canada qu'on a connu pendant plusieurs années jusqu'au temps que l'immigration est venue changer la phase du pays, au vingtième siècle où il a y eu une forte immigration des pays d'Europe, ces dernières vingt années cette immigration l'a beaucoup changé. Elle provient surtout aujourd'hui des pays d'Amérique latine, des pays d'Asie du Sud-Est et des pays d'Afrique, alors que ces gens portent une nouvelle coutume, une nouvelle culture et une nouvelle religion et aussi un nouveau langage à ce multiculturalisme qu'on connaissait au Canada. La différence aussi est que ces gens-là ne sont pas blancs d'Europe mais de différentes couleurs, de différents pays du monde. Alors il y a un certain backlash qui commence à se faire sentir sur les populations, sur les immigrants qui viennent au Canada et sur les réfugiés parce qu'on a une certaine peur de ce qui est différent.
Le Canada qu'on disait tolérant, ouvert et humanitaire envers les peuples du Tiers monde ou envers les gens intéressés à venir au Canada est en train de changer maintenant, et est surtout en train de devenir un Canada intolérant qui est coupé, qui ferme ses portes aux réfugiés et aux immigrants de certains pays, qui tire vers la discrimination. Il y a même un genre d'émergence de racisme qui semble ressortir à travers le pays, qui se fait sentir surtout par des immigrants, mais qui se fait sentir aussi par les populations francophones au Canada comme ici à Sudbury et en Ontario. Elle se fait surtout sentir en Ontario depuis la création de la Loi sur les services en français. Il y a eu un backlash qui est venu attaquer les populations francophones, surtout depuis cette loi-là, mais le backlash existait déjà auparavant.
Depuis la Loi 17 en Ontario au début du siècle où on avait interdit l'enseignement du français en Ontario, il y a toujours eu une montée contre le bilinguisme en Ontario et contre le fait français en Ontario. Il est alors interdit pour les francophones d'apprendre à lire et à écrire dans leur propre langue en Ontario. Alors il est interdit d'apprendre sa propre culture et de connaître sa propre langue et sa propre histoire. En empêchant les gens d'apprendre leur propre langue, on garde les gens dans l'ignorance. On ne connaît pas notre propre culture, on ne comprend même pas notre propre langue.
Le meilleur moyen de contrôler les gens, c'est de les garder ignorants, les empêcher de connaître les antécédents etc. Si tu ne sais pas lire et écrire, tu ne peux pas t'organiser. Je compare ça avec les situations des peuples au Tiers monde ou dans beaucoup de pays de l'Amérique latine ou d'Afrique ou de l'Asie où les populations commencent à s'organiser. Au début, de quoi est-ce qu'ils ont besoin ? Ce sont des cours d'alphabétisation, des cours d'éducation populaire où ils commencent à apprendre à lire et à écrire. Une fois que ces populations-là ont leurs outils de base, elles s'organisent et font des revendications, demandent de meilleures conditions de salaires, de meilleures conditions de vie, des réformes agraires etc. Et c'est lorsque ces populations commencent à s'organiser qu'il y a une répression de la part du gouvernement ou de l'armée par la suite. Plus qu'on demande de droits, plus la répression existe, plus la répression va être forte sur les minorités.
La même chose se passe ici en Ontario. Avant les années 70, il n'existait d'écoles secondaires ici en Ontario, il n'y avait pas d'écoles secondaires à Kapuskasing, l'école se formant en 1969 et 1970. Les écoles comme Penetanguishene et comme Windsor n'existaient pas. Ça veut dire que les parents des enfants qui ont été à l'école avant 1970 n'ont jamais eu d'école secondaire. Alors, comment montrer aux enfants à apprendre le français si nous ne l'avons pas appris nous-mêmes ? Qu'est-ce que les gens font ? Maintenant ils ont commencé à se regrouper dans différents organismes et à faire d'autres revendications. Maintenant, les revendications des francophones c'est un collège francophone, l'université francophone, c'est leur offrir des services dans leur propre langue où ils pourront vivre dans leur propre langue et contrôler leur propre destinée, mais ceci n'a jamais existé auparavant.
Si on n'avait pas d'écoles secondaires, ça veut dire que nous aussi on n'a pas eu d'université française. La raison pour laquelle on n'a pas d'université française, c'est qu'il n'y a personne qui est gradué de l'école secondaire, donc il n'y a personne qui a un niveau d'université. Il n'y a pas beaucoup d'avocats francophones, il n'y a pas beaucoup de docteurs francophones, il n'y a pas beaucoup de députés francophones non plus. Pourquoi ? Parce que le système n'était pas là, il n'y avait pas les services essentiels pour les francophones de pouvoir survivre. Pour que les gens demandent les services, il faut aussi offrir ces services-là.
À Kapuskasing on a voulu créer l'école française. Le problème est, pourquoi l'école française ? Les gens vont déjà à l'école anglaise, ils n'en ont pas besoin, ils parlent déjà l'anglais. Mais le point est qu'aussitôt qu'on ait créé l'école française, il y a eu plus d'étudiants qui sont inscrits à l'école française aujourd'hui qu'à l'école anglaise parce que la majorité de la population est francophone. La même chose s'est passée avec la Cité collégiale à Ottawa. Pour commencer la Cité collégiale, on disait qu'il y aurait peut-être 1500 étudiants, mais ce sont aujourd'hui autour de 2000 étudiants. Puis encore le total va augmenter. Il s'agit d'offrir les services pour que les gens les demandent, puis ils ne demanderont pas si les services ne sont pas là. Si les écoles ne sont pas là, c'est sûr que les gens ne s'en serviront pas. Il s'agit de mettre les services là et les gens vont s'en servir.
Ce dont les francophones ont besoin, ce sont des outils de base, ce sont des outils pour pouvoir créer leur futur, pour pouvoir ainsi prendre leur place dans la société et prendre leur futur en main. Je pense que ce dont on a besoin en Ontario, surtout l'Ontario français, c'est le besoin de sortir notre révolution tranquille. Le Québec dans les années 60 a passé par la révolution tranquille et est sorti du contrôle qui était surtout émis par l'église et par l'État. Maintenant ils sont chefs d'entreprises, ils sont chefs d'industries, ils possèdent leur propre commerce puis leurs propres institutions financières aussi. Ils sont prêts à se lancer vers le futur. Ils ont déjà une base, ce que les francophones ici en Ontario n'ont pas. Si on veut comparer le Canada avec le Québec, il faut commencer par les mêmes points de base.
La situation francophone, il faut la comparer avec la situation de la minorité anglophone au Québec. Il n'y a pas de comparaison du tout. Au Québec on parle de trois universités anglophones, on parle des cégeps francophones, on parle d'hôpitaux anglophones, on parle des médias complètement anglophones, onze stations de radio, trois de télévision, trois journaux, trois quotidiens, 18 hebdomadaires, donc une minorité qui est dominante au Québec alors qu'en Ontario on parle de deux universités soi-disant bilingue, à Ottawa et à Sudbury, on parle encore d'une école à Hearst, une école secondaire à Hearst. La population est à 95%, mais l'école doit être bilingue. Pourquoi l'école ne devrait-elle pas être francophone ? On parle d'une station de télévision en français en Ontario, la CBLFT, qui a disparu des ondes maintenant -- encore des coupures budgétaires. Oui, on supporte les minorités à travers le pays, mais on coupe ce dont on a besoin pour survivre.
1540
Pour pouvoir comprendre la situation du pays, il faut que les revendications du Québec qu'ont les Anglo-Québécois soient données aussi aux Canadiens français en Ontario. Donc, il faut faire des gestes de rapprochement entre le Canada et le Québec. Si on demande au Québec de devenir d'une telle manière, il faut s'assurer que le restant du Canada l'est aussi et le restant du Canada ne l'est pas. Les services ne sont tout simplement pas là à travers du Canada et encore moins en Ontario. Il faut donc que l'Ontario continue à défendre la Loi sur les services en français et ce dans les régions où le besoin est déterminé, donc dans les régions comme à Kapuskasing dont la population est à 60% francophone, à Timmins, 50% francophone. À Sudbury on dit qu'un tiers de la population est francophone, à Hearst, 95%, ce qui fait qu'il y a une population francophone qui demande à être desservie en français. Il faut offrir ces services-là. Ça veut dire qu'il va falloir avoir un personnel qui est bilingue pour pouvoir offrir les services dans leur propre langue. Si on a un problème de santé mentale puis on va aller voir un psychiatre ou un docteur pour parler de son problème puis la personne ne comprend pas notre langue, on ne sera pas prêt à parler.
M. le Président : Monsieur Therrien, si vous voulez conclure, on va terminer.
M. Therrien : Très bien. Mais qu'est-ce qu'il faut faire ? Ça veut dire qu'on a besoin d'un rattrapage, il y a un vide à combler pour ce qui est des francophones, pour remplir les postes des employés francophones. Et la personne doit être bilingue. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'elle doit être d'une culture francophone, ça veut dire qu'elle doit parler français. Ce n'est pas tout à fait la même chose. L'important c'est de respecter que les francophones ont le droit à leur futur en Ontario aussi. Si on veut coexister avec le Québec il faut reconnaître les minorités en Ontario aussi.
M. le Président : Bon, merci. Je voudrais appeler Jean Dennie, s'il est ici. Non ?
ELLIOT LAKE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: Lloyd Bussineau, from the district labour council of Elliot Lake.
Mr Bussineau: My name is Lloyd Bussineau. I am president of the Elliot Lake and District Labour Council. With me today is John Simone, chairperson of the legislative committee of the Elliot Lake and District Labour Council, and David Mellor, vice-chair of the legislative committee, Elliot Lake and District Labour Council.
I want to apologize for our brief. We did not have much time to work on it. We worked all weekend. I got a copy of the draft on Thursday afternoon which you wanted, so we have done the best we could in the short time we had.
The Chair: That is fine.
Mr Bussineau: I will go right into the introduction: Quality of Life and Economic Justice Labour's Vision.
Labour's success over the years has been rooted in two basic strengths. First, we are guided by a vision of social and economic justice, not just for Ontarians but for all Canadians. The Elliot Lake and District Labour Council firmly believes in fairness and equality for all people and their families. Second, we are quick to respond to the changing needs of our affiliates, their members and all working people.
After a decade of political and economic setbacks, as we enter this last decade of the 20th century we seek to reaffirm our vision of a just and equal society for all. This is particularly important with the profound changes occurring in eastern Europe and the USSR. The easing of international hostilities may eliminate the threat of nuclear annihilation. The thaw in superpower relations has a potential to liberate enormous economic resources that can, and must, be put to more productive use.
At this moment, dramatic and tragic events are occurring in the Persian Gulf. Working people there and throughout the world will be affected by the developments in this conflict. No one can predict the outcome, but our hopes and prayers are for a peaceful and equitable settlement of this frightening confrontation. All our dreams are for a world that finds the means to resolve dispute without war.
Labour's vision: Labour's vision for a strong and unified Canada greatly reflects the vision of most Canadians as a whole. Our vision can best be identified in the six following concerns:
1. The opportunity for all members of society to lead productive lives: a full-employment economy with decent jobs for all who want to work; new jobs created through the rebuilding of Canada's infrastructure; and development of effective training and retraining programs for both the employed and unemployed.
2. Full-time, good-paying jobs that offer workers a quality standard of living: a reverse in the decline of workers' real wages; access to higher education and skills training; adequate and affordable housing; extension of full benefit coverage to all workers; and industrial democracy in the workplace.
3. Equitable economic opportunity for all: equal access to full-time and good-paying jobs for all members of Society; an end to employment barriers and discrimination based on race, gender or disability; and quality education for all children and millions of illiterate adults.
4. Universal access to quality health care: easy access to affordable insurance coverage; and comprehensive programs covering all medical needs.
5. Equitable economic growth: equal distribution of our enormous productive capacity among regions and groups within these regions.
6. Elimination of poverty: the right of every citizen to share in the wealth of our country.
Clearly, this vision is still only a dream -- a dream shared and pursued by generations. It is a dream we can make real if we look past the obstacles and work through the barriers towards our common goals.
We have a long road to travel as northerners. Our present economic and social situation is not encouraging. There is a real need for the federal government to work together as equal partners with the provincial governments and communities in realizing collective change for the betterment of all citizens.
1. What are the values we share as Canadians? For the most part, Canadian values are more closely defined as rights. Canadians believe strongly in the basic rights that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: a right to free speech, religion and assembly, to name a few.
From labour's perspective, we desire the need to include additional values to the Charter of Rights. We want the right to a job, the right to join a union, the right to organize, the right to a secure work environment, the right to free collective bargaining on all matters affecting wages, security and working conditions, and the right to political expression and support.
In northern Ontario, our harsh environment and single-resource-based communities strongly defend the values for a full employment economy with the basic rights to workplace democracy.
2. How can we secure our future in the international economy? The free trade agreement was a mistake, and as time elapses this will, in our opinion, become more apparent. Already, thousands of jobs here in Ontario have been lost. High interest rates and the inflated Canadian dollar, although denied by the present federal government, appear to be tied to the free trade agreement. Also, one must include the introduction of the goods and services tax as another deterrent in the inequities experienced within various regions among the provinces.
The first order of business, in our opinion, would be to rescind the three crowning glories of the federal government's restructural policies: free trade, deregulation and privatization.
Second, Canadians must be participants in formalizing regional and national industrial policies whereby labour, industry, government and the consumer become partners in the development and growth of their own economies.
1550
We must immediately cease discussions with the United States and Mexico in relation to further free trade agreements. It is totally unacceptable that Canadians should be expected to accept a lower standard of living in order to be able to compete with the lesser employment and market conditions which currently exist to some degree in the United States, but more drastically in Mexico.
In the years ahead it is very important that the Canadian trade union movement be involved in developing agreements with trade unions in other countries on the norms that should govern the conduct of capital and trade on an international basis. Particular attention must be paid to developing a set of international trading arrangements that will prevent countries from enhancing their balance of trade by reducing labour, social and environmental standards.
3. What roles should the federal and provincial governments play? It is clear that in the beginning our government was divided into two authorities, those of federal and provincial, because of our vast geographical settings that gave way to creating physical barriers, isolating groups of Canadians from each other and facilitating communications and transportation problems to an already growing list of concerns.
The role of government became more complex when provincial capitals required a greater degree of structural and economic independence. However, the federal government was unwilling to work towards establishing national policies that addressed provincial concerns.
The federal government's new role must be towards a willingness to become an equal partner in developing regional and national polices that reflect the restructuring of government incentive programs and capital investment mechanisms, to name just a few.
I am just going to break from this for a minute. I want to say my own feelings. We are not now and never have been a vassal of the United States. We are Canadians with our own country and our own history, and we should not be a part of the great American empire, and this province should let Ottawa know that right away.
4. How do we achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples? In order to achieve justice for aboriginal people, we must first understand their issues. To achieve this, the federal and provincial governments must allow for a forum for aboriginals to air openly their concerns and grievances. As Canadians, we must be aware of the disputes aboriginals face over land claims, education, language, the right to self-government and their desire to be their own nation and not known as "Canada's aboriginals." Perhaps they need to have the opportunity to raise their children in an atmosphere that would ensure that none of their heritage be lost.
5. What are the roles of the English and French languages in Canada? Of the subjects incorporated in the questionnaire, it is clear that one of the major issues tearing this country apart is the role of Quebec within a united Canada and the issue of bilingualism.
We firmly believe it would be a detriment of the province of Quebec and its citizens to separate from the rest of Canada. However, having said that, we believe Quebec must also realize that all its citizens must have the opportunity to language rights. Further, this should be reflected in legislation that enshrines and ensures the language rights of the minority in that province and, indeed, throughout Canada.
In Elliot Lake and along the North Shore, the French-speaking population is approximately 40%, and maybe a lesson can be learned from this northern Ontario region. The French-speaking population maintains its own culture, has its own schools and ongoing social activities, yet at the same time enjoys equal opportunities in all aspects of rural community life as proud Canadians, along with the majority of the English-speaking population in our area.
6. What is Quebec's future in Canada? Quebec's future in Canada is the same as every other province. We must all work together to protect the many cultures of our country. While it is true that Quebec has a distinct society, we must acknowledge that minorities and aboriginal peoples have the right to protect their own culture. Therefore, Quebec's future in Canada must be as a participating member of the Canadian government. In addition, they must and can be a vital part of Canada's economic, industrial and manufacturing link, prepared to share its natural and human resources and skills to the betterment of a strong, united Canada.
7. What is the place of the west, the north and the Atlantic region? To grow as Canadians we must recognize that what is good for one region may not necessarily be good for another. To find a resolution to this, we must have a mechanism to pursue and discuss openly our concerns and find solutions to the problems. Equal representations and rights must be available for all Canadians.
Of course, a good working relationship between the provinces, territories and the federal government is also important. We must be able to work with all levels of government to help them solve their problems if we want help in solving ours. Canadians from all parts of the country working together would be better equipped to help solve problems, such as with the economy, health care, taxation and language, to name just a few.
The government of Canada and the provinces must be willing to employ a full range of policy tools in order that regional imbalances can be corrected to ensure Canada's economic development. Economic balance would ensure that Canada's ability to compete in the world market would be strengthened. This in turn would create a stronger Canadian economy while protecting our different cultures. In so doing, we can be assured that we are a part of a strong family, with everybody contributing collectively to Canada's wellbeing.
The federal government must divert funds to rebuild and double-track our railroads from coast to coast, in order to facilitate the movements of people and commodities between provinces and other countries.
I want to break from the brief for a second. I want to say that 46 years ago we had a very good rail system in this country. We had our own ships plying the high seas. Our universities were turning out scientists and technicians by the hundreds every year. Our aircraft companies were at least 20 years ahead of everybody else. And we were one country -- maybe speaking two languages, but we were all Canadians. What I am going to say now is that what we had before we can have again. Those are my feelings.
8. What does Ontario want? The people of Ontario have the same dreams and expectations as all Canadians. Ontarians desire the right to live a long, productive, dignified life as Canadians. We must understand that while our expectations are basically the same, we are different culturally. Therefore, it is necessary to accept and grow with these contrasts. This best can be reinforced through a Constitution that is both equitable and irrefutable. Our needs are no different than any other Canadian. We must pull together if we are to overcome the dilemmas that as Canadians we all face. The present government of Ontario has had, as part of its platform since 1984, the following people's charter, which would serve well for all Canadians and we hope some day will become a reality. I am going to read the people's charter right now.
"Our economy exists to produce wealth for all. Only a democratic government which intervenes in a meaningful way can improve the lives of people collectively so each may live the good life individually.
"Good health care, pensions, education, housing and recreation are the right of all. The wealth created is subject to fair distribution.
"A planned economy and a secure future require recognition of the right of all to jobs. The rights of working people to control all aspects of their work must be affirmed and management's rights progressively reduced.
"Peace, a clean environment and democratic decision-making in a world of full equality for all are essential. The right of all people to participate fully, without discrimination, in their communities must be guaranteed.
"New Democrats work to replace authoritarian structures with democracy; poverty and misery with security and happiness; and the fears of the present with hope for the future."
It was adopted 30 June 1984.
I am going to conclude. For the most part, all Canadians share in labour's vision that provides the opportunity for all members of society to lead productive lives. Therefore, the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, must ensure that the Constitution allows all Canadians to play a key role in developing the social, economic and technical infrastructures necessary for industrial planning, economic justice and quality of life for all our people.
1600
Mr Bisson: Where do I begin? There are many questions. I think I will just touch on one issue, because we can get into a long discussion here. One of the things you mentioned in the brief -- I think it is something that we all, as Canadians, can share -- is that one of the things we want as people is the opportunity to share in the wealth of the province and the wealth of the country. You talk about the need to have a fairer distribution of wealth with regard to people having access to jobs, full employment, good wages, good benefits, etc.
The problem, as most people see it, in getting those rights or those benefits from our employers or from society in general is that there is a perception out there on the part of some of the business leaders that "I have to give up something." I think to a certain extent it is the same argument when we talk about equity, whether with regard to pay or access to work or language or whatever.
What wisdom can you give our committee and all members of the House? We are all interested basically in the same things and making sure that all Ontarians and all Canadians have access to work, are able to fully enjoy the benefits our province and our country can give, without giving the impression to some of the business leaders or other people in our society who would see that as an infringement on their own territory. How do you deal with that? There is a perception that if you as a worker are going to negotiate wages with your employer and you get an extra 50 cents an hour, it is going to cost him or her more money. So what do you do? That is really the thing. We are talking about power structures. Tough question.
Mr Bussineau: I will let Dave Mellor answer that question.
Mr Mellor: I am from Elliot Lake; I have been a resident of Elliot Lake for the last 26 years. We all have our differences and we all have differences of opinion in political and economic areas, but let me tell you, when the chips are down, it is surprising how easily we can work together as ordinary people, whether we be from the managerial side or from the labour side. The experience in Elliot Lake, for example, over the last two years -- I do not have to tell you politicians the dilemma Elliot Lake faces at present. With the blessing of our members, of course -- it is a strong union town -- we realized that the economic climate for employers in Elliot Lake was not very good. We got together and did the right thing. Our members indirectly took some -- not concessions, but were very lenient in their demands over the past contracts. In fact, we did extend our contracts. Sometimes it takes hard times to bring you to reality, but I think when those hard times arrive, people will work together for the betterment not only of themselves but of their community, of their fellow people. I think the Elliot Lake situation over the years has proven that.
No one was more anti-company than me, I can assure you. I have been involved in the labour movement all my life -- well, ever since joining the workforce -- and even my attitude, when I was really put to the test and facing reality on an economic and social point of view, was mellowed to some degree. But I did that because I knew the other side was prepared to do the same. I think that is what it takes. I think it takes hard times to bring people to realize that, yes, sometimes it is better to work together in harmony than to have confrontation. Given the present economic situation in this province, I think you will see that over the years to come there will be a tendency for more co-operation and more understanding of each other's roles, so that in the long run it will be for the betterment of all the citizens of this province. I think our experience in Elliot Lake has proven that.
Mr Offer: My question somewhat takes off from the response to the last question. You spoke about the ability to work together, and on page 5 of your brief you talk about the roles the federal and provincial governments should play. In that respect, you talk about the structuring of government incentive programs and capital investment mechanisms as well as some other matters.
My question is, you say that there has to be a new role for the federal government and that this new role must be towards being an equal partner. I am wondering if you can expand a little bit on that paragraph. I say that because we have had a number of submissions in not only this area but other areas that talk about the responsibilities of both the provincial and federal governments and how in some people's opinion they should not be changed; in others, they should be changed.
I am wondering, on the basis of your submission from the district labour council, do you see that there is the necessity for a reallocation of powers between the provincial and federal governments, and if so, is that reallocation towards more powers for the federal government or more powers for the provincial government or something in between? I am wondering if you might be able to share with us some thoughts on that.
Mr Simone: At first, it is a very difficult question to answer, but I think we have to get back to the grass roots. The first order of business is establishing community identity. Generally what happens is that industry has an interest in a particular area, whether it be for mineral exploitation, forestry, etc. What happens is that communities become born and there is insufficient infrastructure that is set in place unless 20 on 30 years has progressed down the line.
What we are proposing here is that the fly-in type of operations have to be totally withdrawn; that is, there has to be long-term planning for these communities. If an industry wants to go in and exploit resources over a 30-year period, then there has to be a mechanism in place that also provides for community planning throughout that period.
We are saying the federal government has to take a lead role, if not anything else, to guide those incentive programs. Federal jurisdictions, provincial jurisdictions: All too often we hear in our area, "Well, the province is doing everything it can, but the federal government hasn't done anything yet." We are saying that if a community is allowed to survive for 30 years and if companies put in their five-year plans or 10-year plans, then it should be done in an equal partnership between all parties, communities, workers, the consumer, federal and provincial governments, so we are saying a long-term plan for all industry development within communities and cities for every region in Canada.
The Chair: We are going to proceed. We are at the end of the time. Thanks for your presentation and questions.
JEAN DENNIE
The Chair: Can I call next Jean Dennie.
M. Dennie : Merci, Monsieur le Président, bonjour, membres du comité. Je vais vous donner ma vision d'une nouvelle constitution ainsi qu'un nouveau Canada pour les années 2000. Comme nous le savons, le Canada a été fondé et développé par trois groupes principaux, les Français, les Anglais et les autochtones. Aujourd'hui nous avons une variété de groupes ethniques qui aident au développement du Canada. Notre pays s'est transformé d'une société simple et rurale en une société moderne, technologique et urbaine. Il y a seulement un élément qui n'a pas complètement suivi la modernisation de notre société comme nous la connaissons aujourd'hui : la constitution.
Je suis devant vous aujourd'hui non pas pour discuter du passé, mais pour vous donner ma vision d'un Canada fort et uni. Le Canada est un pays qui se distingue des États-Unis ; nous sommes un pays qui est tolérant. Nous avons une population qui a un respect pour les droits et libertés de nos frères et soeurs, ce qui est représenté par la Charte des droits et libertés. Nous avons une société dont la politique n'est pas une d'assimilation, «melting pot», mais d'intégration, avec le droit de garder et même d'épanouir sa propre langue et sa propre culture. Le Canada a un système de santé qui ne crée aucune discrimination ; tous les citoyens et les citoyennes ont le droit de recevoir des soins de santé de la même qualité que ceux de leur voisin. Le Canada est un état doté de plusieurs institutions, telles que Radio-Canada, Via-Rail, Air Canada et Pétro-Canada.
Une autre institution qui nous distingue des pays de l'Ouest est notre système parlementaire. Nous avons un système fédéral composé de la Chambre des communes, du sénat et du gouverneur général. Mais la question qui peut être soulevée est la suivante : est-ce que ce système fédéraliste fonctionne comme auparavant ? Personnellement, je crois que non. Il nous faut une réforme incroyable au niveau parlementaire.
1610
Premièrement, il faut éliminer le sénat. Comme nous le savons tous, cette chambre est utilisée pour de la politique partisane, un système de récompense pour des amis. Pour remplacer cette institution, nous pouvons agrandir la Chambre des communes pour y inclure des députés qui représenteront des circonscriptions ainsi que des régions spécifiques, telles que le nord de l'Ontario.
Pour compléter notre réforme du Parlement, nous devons abolir le poste de gouverneur général. Cette institution est très puissante, mais encore, le parti élu l'utilise pour de la partisanerie. Si le gouverneur général n'utilise pas son pouvoir, tel que refuser de donner la sanction royale à des projets de loi ou de dissoudre la Chambre des communes, surtout lorsque nous avons un gouvernement très impopulaire, il faut sérieusement considérer l'abolition de ce poste. Avec les réformes mentionnées ci-haut, la Chambre des communes deviendra le seul outil décisionnel.
Discutons maintenant de l'économie, non mondiale mais nationale, plus spécifiquement l'entente de libre-échange entre le Canada et les États-Unis. Je dois avouer que je ne suis pas économiste, mais j'ai acquis une compréhension de l'économie et cette entente est désastreuse pour le Canada.
Cette entente va non seulement augmenter l'influence américaine au Canada, mais nous allons souffrir excessivement au point de vue de perte d'emplois. Et maintenant le gouvernement fédéral a décidé de se joindre aux discussions pour un libre-échange avec les États-Unis et le Mexique. Imaginez le nombre de compagnies qui vont se rendre au Mexique. Cet exode ne sera pas cause car les chefs de ces compagnies veulent profiter du climat tropical ; nous savons bien pourquoi : une main d'oeuvre qui est extrêmement moins coûteuse que celle du Canada. Au lieu de signer une entente de libre-échange avec les États-Unis et le Mexique, je crois fortement qu'il faudrait d'abord éliminer les barrières économiques interprovinciales.
Discutons maintenant du rôle des autochtones au Canada. Depuis l'arrivée de l'homme blanc les autochtones de notre pays ont souvent été oubliés. Nous leur avons enlevé leurs territoires et plusieurs autochtones ont souffert l'assimilation de l'homme blanc. C'est pour cette raison qu'il faut travailler dans le but de réinstaurer la culture, la langue et la valeur des autochtones. Pour accomplir ceci, la première nation doit avoir un contrôle absolu sur l'éducation de leurs enfants et des adultes, sur la justice, à l'exception des lois fédérales, sur les programmes de services sociaux et le maintien de leurs propres territoires. Donc, ceci veut dire que l'homme blanc ne doit pas avoir la décision finale dans ces secteurs. L'aspect le plus important que nous devons sérieusement considérer est de réserver un siège à la table constitutionnelle pour les autochtones. Cette place doit être créée immédiatement et non dans le futur.
Quel fut le rôle du bilinguisme au Canada ? Le bilinguisme est très important, non pour offrir des services en français à l'extérieur du Québec, mais aussi des services en anglais au Québec.
L'offre de services aux francophones au niveau fédéral et provincial n'est pas suffisant. Pour combattre l'assimilation des francophones au Canada les gouvernements provinciaux doivent donner aux francophones un pouvoir absolu dans le domaine de l'éducation. Nous devons contrôler nos propres conseils scolaires. Pour assurer que le taux d'assimilation reste très bas, les provinces du Canada doivent ainsi garantir aux francophones la création de collèges et universités en français
J'aimerais prendre ce temps pour demander aux membres néo-démocrates de ce comité d'exercer des pressions auprès de leurs collègues au caucus d'accepter et de mettre en oeuvre les recommandations du Rapport de la Commission consultative sur les services collégiaux en français dans le nord de l'Ontario.
Pour terminer, je vais partager avec vous ma vision d'un Canada fort, uni, mais décentralisé. Le rapport Allaire du Parti libéral du Québec est un outil de discussion. J'appuie ce rapport non seulement parce que je crois que le Québec a une place au sein du Canada, mais aussi parce que ce rapport exprime la réalité vers un nouveau Canada.
Dans les dernières décennies, les provinces ont acquis de plus en plus de pouvoir. Prenons un exemple en particulier, tout récemment, le projet de loi C-69 du gouvernement fédéral. Cette législation diminue l'argent du fédéral aux provinces de l'Ontario, du Québec, de l'Alberta et de la Colombie-Britannique. L'an 2004, ces provinces auront la responsabilité de subventionner leurs propres programmes tels que les services sociaux et l'éducation.
En conclusion, pour garder le Canada ensemble, il faut décentraliser le pays. Un gouvernement central et fort ne fonctionne plus. Il faut faire un transfert énorme de pouvoir du fédéral aux provinces. Mais il faut réaliser que les petites provinces, telles que l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard, le Nouveau-Brunswick etc ne pourront peut être pas subventionner les nouveaux pouvoirs, donc il faudra peut-être faire un réalignement des provinces. Ceci veut dire que les provinces de l'Est formeront une province suivies du Québec et de l'Ontario ; ensuite pour l'Ouest, nous aurons une amalgamation du Manitoba, de la Saskatchewan et de l'Alberta, et la Colombie-Britannique qui restera telle quelle.
Voilà, membres du comité, ma vision d'un nouveau Canada. Je vous remercie pour prendre ce temps de m'avoir écouté.
Ms Churley: I did not actually take notes on what you said at the beginning of your speech, but you said something about the powers of the federal government and I just wanted to ask you what you think about -- of course, after the compromise of 1982 where there was not a good discussion around the way we run our country, which I believe is part of the problem; a discussion should have taken place then.
Basically we do not have that much of a different system than we had before 1982. But one of the different things is, of course, the drafting of the Charter of Rights, which means that this results in more of a role, an increased role, for the courts in our system. I am just wondering what you think about that, if you think that is a good thing.
Mr Dennie: I think the courts are there to interpret the laws; they are not there to change the laws. I think that is why we have elected officials. It does not just have to stay on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; it is on any law. They have the right to interpret the law, but it comes then to the power of Parliament, of the elected officials to then modify the laws according to the judgements of the courts.
Ms Churley: But of course if you have laws that are so loosely defined, and I think that has been part of the problem, then the courts end up having to interpret very often what these different things mean.
CLAYTON SHAWANA
The Chair: I call Clayton Shawana, from the Wikwemikong first nation of Manitoulin Island.
Mr Shawana: Good afternoon Chairman, members of the committee, audience, listeners.
[Remarks in native language]
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address some of our concerns. That, by the way, is in another official language of Canada.
It is unfortunate we were only given, I think, Thursday afternoon to prepare some sort of a presentation to you. Actually, it should take a couple of days. Even that would be very limiting.
What we have done is we were asked to talk to you on the social and economic development concerns of Indian first nations here in Ontario and as they probably relate in Canada. You will have to understand that there are some givens. An Indian on an Indian reserve is a ward of the federal government, and as such he is not a legal person; he is not a legal entity.
Indians are, by stats, the fastest growing labour force in Canada. We have a lot of unsettled issues. Your version of Canada is 120 years old. I believe ours is quite a bit older than that, and yet we have unsettled land ownership issues in this country, land claims.
1620
On our Indian reserves, we do not all wish to be identified as drains on the public taxpayer's dollar, if you will. We have different levels of people on our reserve also. We have doctors. We have lawyers. We have the ones who are uneducated. We have the old people. Like the rest of Canada, we too have a brain drain. We lose our people to the white communities off reserve. There they prosper. They join society. We on the reserve, or some of us who choose to return, have to try to hold the community together for the less fortunate.
My name is Clayton Shawana. I am a member of the Wikwemikong band on Manitoulin Island. We are probably the third-largest Indian reserve in Canada in land. Our reserve is in two sections. It is about 110,000 acres. There is 126 miles of shoreline on it. Our tribal background is of three. Prior to 1835 there were Odawas. After 1836 the Potawatamics of the plains came in. In 1850 people that were dissatisfied with the Robinson-Huron treaty area up here moved down to the island and into our communities.
I run what is called the Wikwemikong Development Commission. It is a non-profit corporation. I started it up for one reason. I returned from the United States. I lived in the United States up until 1975 and my chief phoned me down there and asked me if I would come home and help him run the reserve. About that time my kids were starting to become seven, eight years old. They were starting to be ashamed of what they were and I thought maybe it was time I took them home so that they will learn who they actually are.
I came home in 1976, ran the arena in Wikwemikong for five years and this job of band economic development officer came along. I applied for it and it became obvious that sitting behind a desk was not the answer. I needed a vehicle, something I could use to create a legal identity for the band. It was with a non-profit corporation, and with that non-profit corporation we have been able to access provincial and federal programs and we average probably a million and a quarter a year. I do a lot of proposal writing. I have girls who work with me on that. We have formed a nucleus in our development corporation where we help band members.
I have a colleague whom I work with very closely along the North Shore, who works with seven smaller bands. Today we will try to give you a picture of development on the reserve from the large context and from the small reserves. I give you Joe.
Mr Corbiere: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Corbiere, and like Clayton said I work with the seven first nations along what is called the North Shore, which stretches between Sudbury here on the east and Sault Ste Marie on the west. Out of those seven communities, they vary in size from some of the smaller ones of maybe 100 people to the larger ones of about 1,200.
I work for what is called Mamaweswen, the North Shore tribal council, and in it we try to deliver services to the communities that are affiliated with us and also, I guess, participate in discussions such as this with whoever asks us.
I think some of the things from the economic development perspective that both Clayton and I get involved with quite a bit are that we like to try to improve the quality of life in our communities. This goes through many different areas, whether it is job creation, helping to explore other employment opportunities off reserve, educational opportunities or just general development in our communities.
I guess part of what we would like to do as native people is to share in the wealth of Canada and become active participants in the economy. A lot of times native people are viewed as drains on the economy, drains on the taxpayer's dollar, yet I believe we want the opportunity to participate just in the Canadian economy. Right now, I would say in the North Shore area, and probably throughout Canada where communities are located, there could be quite a large economic effect in the local area. For example, just to do a rough ballpark calculation, out of those seven communities averaging, there might be a total population of 6,000 to 7,000 people in the areas of Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, the North Shore, Blind River and what not. They would probably put in somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70 million into those economies. But a lot of our participation is involved in social transfer payments, education and training. There is a small and growing native economy, job opportunities, business creation.
One thing I would like to emphasize is that our communities want to find solutions to the problems. For generations now, I guess we have been told by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other government agencies, whether they be provincial or federal: "Here is a solution to your problem. We are going to come and make everything well again." Well, it has helped to some extent, but I would say in the majority it has not. I think you might be fairly aware of some of the statistics -- the high unemployment rates, the high suicide rates, the drug and alcohol abuse problems -- and I guess what I am asking is that we would be given the opportunity to find our own solutions because the outside solutions have not worked. I believe that, given these opportunities, if we are able to find our solutions, it benefits all of Canada. It definitely benefits our native communities, but it gives us a better basis to participate in the general Canadian society.
A specific area that is being worked on right now is through training and I believe Clayton mentioned earlier about the working-age population. According to some of the statistics in the general Canadian society, the working-age population is decreasing, but in the native communities it is the opposite, where our working-age populations are increasing at a faster rate than the general society.
Through the Department of Employment and Immigration, and in consultation with some of our native organizations at the provincial level and the national level, they have created this program called Pathways to Success. Some of the, I guess, background to that is they have basically had a pilot project for this in the province of British Columbia. However, there are a lot of differences, as there are all across Canada regionally and what not, but some of the communities in BC are quite a bit smaller than what they are here. In Wikwemikong community, for instance, there are 3,000 to 4,000 people, while in BC we believe the biggest native community might be around 400, and it provides a lot of different opportunities, a lot of different barriers to development.
One of the things that I mentioned before about allowing us to find our own solutions, part of that is the community control in regard to these training dollars through Pathway to Success. Now, that seems to be the theory behind the present setup, which is scheduled to start 1 April, but we really have to, and hopefully through this discussion, ensure the community control. Indian Affairs right now is devolving some of its economic development dollars directly to the communities and to tribal councils to help right at the community level rather than, again, sitting back and saying, "We have the solution."
One of the things that concerns us about this community control is the equal representation. Depending on the size of the particular community, right now we could end up with what are called regional management boards for Pathways to Success where perhaps a community like Wikwemikong, with 4,000 to 5,000 people, would only have one representative, while another community could have 50 people and have the same representative on these regional boards.
The other part I would like to talk about right now is the land claim process. There are a lot of outstanding land claims across Canada. The ones we are more familiar with are the ones in this Robinson-Huron treaty area and it is a really slow process. I am not sure, but I think there might be only one or two that have been settled in the last 10 to 15 years. There is a policy ongoing right now that only five or six of these land claims get negotiated at a time and from the community I am from at Batchawana, there are probably at least three or four separate land claims. I think someone had mentioned that just the land claims that have sort of been tabled with the federal government will take maybe 100 or 200 years just to go through them, not even to settle them.
We really need a process that speeds it up and really tries to settle the land claims. We feel that just by settling some of the land claims and the outstanding issues such as that it allows for, in some instances, money and dollars being delivered to the communities so that they can decide on their own development -- but other resources as well, whether it is land that has been repurchased, say, from the province or what not. But this can lead into economic development dollars, which ties back into leading into our approach about economic development and making the decisions at the community level. With that, I will turn it back over to Clayton.
1630
Mr Shawana: I would like to add on to the land claims. It is like a card game; everybody knows you have 52 cards in a deck. But in a land claim there is a developer who lives outside the reserve, there is a developer who lives inside. They do not know what rights, what issue they are going to face in their development. If everybody knew exactly what was what in these land claims, they would settle. Then everybody can go about their business of developing whatever it is they want to develop.
Wikwemikong has two land claims right now. One is called Point Grondine. That is a very straight issue. It was 1850, where English surveyors came in and measured off in miles, and the Indian, whose second language at that time was French, was speaking in leagues. So it is just a basic difference in measurements. A lot of the reserves bounded then were resolved within two years, but this one was never. So it is really a straightforward issue of resettling it, but I understand the federal government does not want to get involved in it. The province wants to do it, but the feds do not.
We also have 27 islands around the Wikwemikong reserve. The people did not settle in Wikwemikong by accident. There was a design to it. It was a good hunting area, good berry area - good berries, lots of berries -- and there was good fishing, abundant fishing around those waters surrounding Wikwemikong. The province has now closed off two bays, saying that they are -- I call it playing with Mother Nature by messing with the splake, the lake trout. They are calling it the splake; I call it the mutant lubetube. It is a greasy fish. But stuff like that -- we need our waters back.
Two other items. The way we are doing this, we are going to give you four problems that we see. Joe has outlined two; I will give you two more. One is the GST -- and we will try to speed it up after this. I am sorry we are slowing down. But the GST, if you read in the papers the administrative policies, it is a real boon, it is good news for Indian people. I got news: it is not. Look at the way they are implementing the administration of that. A case in point is a postage stamp. On an Indian reserve they say everybody pays postage. That is the way it came down from Graham Armour, director of retail operations for Canada Post. What he neglected to understand was that Wikwemikong has 600 houses in its community. There is a lot of intrareserve mail just in the administration and we are saying that those should not be GST costs, but they never stopped to figure that there were some reserves big enough, with their own post offices.
GST right now is a hot spot. In the development corporation I am in, we are trying to find out just how it is going to affect us. Probably what has been laid down now will be changed in three months or two months, just as soon as they can plug up the loopholes that we may find in them. But it is not the rose garden that many people may figure on an Indian reserve with GST.
The civil service is another problem area that I see. It is a real mind-boggling item when you stop to think that civil servants who are supposed to be working for Indians should be phasing themselves out. Ideally, when the Indian develops himself, they should be stepping back and saying, "Okay, they are big enough; they can go by themselves." But what happens is, when a person gets a job in the civil service, the first thing he shoots for is tenure. So he gets this tenure, and the next thing is retirement. Once he sees those, the closer he is to attaining his goal of retirement - is to keep that Indian subservient under his thumb, undeveloped. That is how his guaranteed pension comes in. Those jobs should be phased out. They should be sunset claused. They like to use that phrase on us: "Sunset clause your proposals." I think they should do that with the positions that are dedicated to Indian affairs, either in the provincial or the federal sector.
But it is not all a bitch list we have here. We have some possible solutions that we would like you to look at. I outlined these, and Joe and I just put notes on them.
The first one: The provincial and federal government should play a larger role in assuming greater risks in native business startups by providing tax breaks for joint-venture participants and by giving special consideration for native-owned businesses in some government contracts. This is done in Alberta and in the United States. We could create our own Mexico here. I listened to the last four presentations and they seem to be all bounding on we are losing a lot of jobs to the United States. They are going down into the Bible belt, Arkansas, that whole central area, but in three years' time they will be shoved off into Mexico. But here we have an opportunity. You have the same thing here that Mexico offers except for the climate. You have a high labour force, you have the low overhead, you have the land on the reserves. Give business people a break to join up with Indian bands to start up businesses on Indian reserves. There will be opportunity created not just for the Indian but for all of us.
So what we have done is we have 13 possible solutions -- that is the first one - that I would like to see addressed. Give breaks to businesses that want to locate on-reserve and native-owned businesses in some government contracts. In the United States I believe they have a policy in any government contract that 5% of the contract has to be given to a minority corporation, albeit, whatever it may be, they are allowed to bid on it. You register as a minority corporation, you have seven years to tap into these contracts, and after seven years you are no longer eligible and as such you should be able to stand on your own feet. Canada should take a look at that. I would like to turn the next one over to Joe.
Mr Corbiere: Some of the other things that we are suggesting in our solutions, our wish list, is the supporting of establishment of financial institutions on reserves, perhaps credit unions, which can contract with the band development corporations to act as the Province of Ontario Savings Office. We have got to try and ensure that more money turns around to the local communities before it goes out into the towns and cities in Canada and the province.
Another thing we are looking at is developing the capacity in the first nations for community economic development agencies. Like in the case of the tribal council, we are involved with the province for what are called the municipal economic development associations. Although we are not municipalities, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines helped us to start what is called the enterprise circle on the North Shore. This would help us in economic planning, developing economic development organizations and legal frameworks to handle things such as the GST and incorporation, etc.
One of the other things we have already talked about is the training. We have high illiteracy rates and dropout rates, so we need the training and education and we need it in a way that people on the reserves and other native communities can see the impact and know that it is going to be beneficial rather than something that just does not work. I guess part of that is just having us kept aware of some of the job opportunities.
In a story that Clayton tells me sometimes, it is like, "Tell us when the train is coming, not when it has passed already." That seems to be what happens sometimes. You say, "Well, why didn't you take that opportunity?" Well, a lot of times we do not know about it or we are not kept really informed.
I guess another area on our list is funding for annual native sectoral conferences on the northern economy -- for example, tourism, natural resources -- just to keep our people aware of what is going on, like in the fur industry, the logging industry, tourism especially in northern Ontario. These annual conferences would definitely help us understand a lot of the issues that the non-native entrepreneurs and governments are dealing with.
I guess one particular area is there has to be some sort of model to sensitize government staff, government politicians, about native concerns and needs. For example, Northern Development and Mines had a group of native people from this area come in and discuss issues. It was an interesting experience, I think, from both sides of the fence because we found out things that people did not know from either side, even though some of the people with that particular branch of the government had been working with natives for, you know, 20 years, 30 years and what not.
1640
I guess one of the things that we see is also encouragement by the educational institutions, whether they are the community colleges and/or the universities and high schools, I guess, to get the native students into the hard sciences. A lot of our students right now are really being pushed into social work streams in colleges and universities and, granted, we do need social workers but we do not need 100 coming out of the local schools, where there might be jobs for only 10 people. It just does not make any sense, but they are sort of being pushed out through that sort of thing. It would really be helpful to us to have some specially trained or fully trained financial people -- accountants, investors and what not -- and scientists. We are getting involved now in a lot of environmental issues. It would be nice to be able to work with a native person who has this background.
I guess that sums up my part of the presentation, other than I should tell you that, as you probably noticed, I do not look native. My father was a past chief from the Batchawana band. My mother's father was native and her mother was right from England. So some people have told me this allows me a chance to be the spy in some of the government organizations.
The Chair: Mr Shawana, if you could sum up, we have gone beyond the time allocated.
Mr Shawana: It is very unfortunate. May I ask for five minutes?
The Chair: If you could try to do it shorter than that we would appreciate it.
Mr Shawana: Okay, open up the civil service to natives through more aggressive employment equity implementation. Right now that policy is a farce, especially in management positions. The Ministry of Natural Resources will give me all the pine-cone-picking positions I want, but that is not what I am looking for. I am looking for management positions for Indian people. Eliminate barriers to native participation in federal and provincial programs. A farmer on the Manitonulin, if he is based in a municipality, is eligible for $11,500 in annual subsidies; the native on an Indian reserve who is farming is not. There is no reason why he should not be eligible for those also, just because he on an Indian reserve.
Increased representation on relevant provincial boards and commissions related to economic development, social development, health and natural resources: Alberta did a study on tourism and found that the Indian was the third-biggest attraction in Alberta, next to the mountains and the lakes. Since they could not put mountains and lakes on boards, they put the Indian on there and they are promoting him around the world.
Specific native funding for environmental problems or solutions: I keep reading about something called the green plan, although I have yet to see anything concrete on it. The Ontario Trappers Association sent a letter out this week about trying to get a fur sale going in North Bay. I saw the letter; it was addressed to my son. He had a fishing and trapping licence when he was in high school and so they sent him out the brochure. They said, "One of the biggest mistakes that the Ontario Trappers Association made during the past few years was never associating themselves with the Indian trapper," because Greenpeace has no problems with the Indian trapper. That is something they lost, so now they are regretting that they never did tie in more closely with the native trapper and as a result get Greenpeace off their back.
But you are talking about this green plan. Why do you not unite it with an Indian? I mean he is a natural. He is supposed to be the environmentalist of the whole thing. He is the one who did not put up the factories and the other pollutants. It could be a real marriage of the two.
I am dating myself here, but I was in grade 13 in 1961 and the guidance counsellor asked me what I wanted to be. I did not know. There was no TV. We did not have a TV. I read books, but you never saw anything through books. I told the guidance counsellor I did not know. I was in 13A, supposed to be the brain class, and I did not know what I wanted to be. As a result, that is as far as I ever went in school.
But one thing that happened since, in the meantime, out in Manitoba I saw an Indian group that brought in Indian kids to Winnipeg once a month and it would run workshops. The day I was there, they brought in an insurance company, representatives out of Pueblo, New Mexico, and it was all Indian-owned, Indian-staffed and Indian-operated. That afternoon they brought in a group of corporate lawyers out of New York City who were all Mohawks. It gave those 120 kids who were sitting there the opportunity to dream, to broaden their horizons, rather than it being strongly focused on just their own little community. I think there should be some way that can be done other than handing out pamphlets in high schools and colleges, getting an active role model association going.
I hope we did not upset anybody by what we said. I like to think we should be equal partners in all this. The other two groups before us have very differing views. I like to think we can associate with all of them. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you. Even though we are a little bit beyond the time, there were a couple of questions. I would be happy to allow one question. Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: We have heard an awful lot in the last week or so about native self-government, about land claims. Your presentation was really the first presentation we heard dealing with economics on the reservations and with the first nations. One of the things I would like you to help us with is the delivery of social programs by the government. When I ask for some help in getting your views about that, I want as well to keep in mind the idea of natives deciding for themselves. How can government help to develop with natives proper delivery of social programs?
Mr Shawana: First of all, I am not an expert on the social programs on the reserve. I am more into economic development and the management of a development corporation. But we do tap into it a bit. I see a lot of problems myself in there and I think Joe mentioned it -- I do not know if he did -- but one thing that we have always stressed was that in schools there should be more hard sciences taught.
Ten, 15, 20 years ago the Indian was perceived as having a social problem. He was this, he was that, and "Well, fine, let's equip him with social workers." To me, that was not the answer; the answer is jobs, meaningful jobs where an Indian can plan, "Two weeks in June, after the kids get out, the wife and I are going to go down to Acapulco," not saying, "I need 4 more weeks to get 20 weeks in to get my UI benefits for this year." That, to me, is not good social planning, but that is the box in which we are caught. There are a lot of programs in there where -- I should not say this in school, I guess -- but it is too easy to get things and, as a result, you fall into that.
In the 1950s, Wikwemikong had a lot of self-supporting farms on it. They took care of themselves. I grew up in an Indian school, a residential school, and there were a lot of us. The problem was we were three miles out of the main village and, if my parents wanted to keep me at home, they had to move into the village and abandon their farms, starting the welfare cycle: going into towns, leaving their self-sustaining farms behind just so they could stay with their kids. The reason our farm survived was they sent us away to schools, but it broke up a lot of families.
Social programs, to me, are very powerful. They like to jump on people who are under them in the communities, like I was. Our welfare office is terrified of the auditors out of Sudbury here. They are scared to make decisions. They are allowed to make decisions, but they will not make decisions for fear of upsetting the auditing staff out of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
1650
I should have mentioned earlier, the Calmeadow loans program that is going across the country, I was the pilot program for that. We did it for two years. It was done with Martin Connell out of Toronto. We had roadblocks when we were trying to set up small loans programs on reserve. Because of this, a lot of people did not want to come out of the closet. If they were involved in arts activity, crafts activity, they did not want to acknowledge it. But in order to sell your art, you should acknowledge it; you should put your name on it.
I asked Martin and some of the people he knew if they could get us an audience with ministers so that we could talk to them about our problems, and fortunately for us, Martin was able to do that. But yes, I think you need the grass-roots people more to design their own needs on social programs rather than it being a federally designed program.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. You have given us a number of useful specifics to take back with us.
Mr Shawana: I hope you do not use it as the know-it-all because there are a lot of other things involved in this.
Mr Harnick: Do you have a copy of your brief?
The Chair: I think, Mr Shawana, members of the committee would be interested in getting a copy of your brief, if you would like to send it to us.
GILBERT GRAY
The Chair: I will go back to the list and check to see if Lois Miller is here. No. Then two additions to the list: Is Tom Taylor here? Gilbert Gray?
Mr Gray: Hi, ladies and gentlemen. I am here for one reason, from my experience, to try and keep this nation functioning to the best of our ability. I only have the right to one opinion and principles. I also have the right of opinion, or partly the right of opinion, what we all like to know is what the Constitution of Canada represents. To my years in Canada, the Constitution is more of a motherhood issue than it is a federal issue.
When they wrote that Meech Lake accord, the constitutional Meech Lake accord, they never asked any lady to be in on that. There was just a bunch of old stags there who went ahead and drew it all up and promoted trouble upon trouble. I was brought up in Quebec, 1914, and I moved across the pond into Sudbury here. I worked in mining development, then I moved back to Quebec. I bought a farm there in 1961 and stayed there until 1980, when I moved back into Ontario. It was not over language rights.
But the society we are talking about, society is the Bible addiction for all people. It represents the whole nation. So Quebec says they are not in society. Quebec is in society since it has been in Canada. Every mother has the right to teach her children their own mother tongue. I do not see where anybody has the authority to tell these mothers they have to teach their children the Bible addiction, their fate in two mother tongues. I think we would be a lot better of if we just teach them one mother tongue. Whatever it is going to be, a French Canada or an English-speaking Canada, I have no jurisdiction over that.
In Quebec when they talk about these two founding nations, Indians and French -- well, they could have been. I do not know. I was not there when it all happened, but I listen to a lot of people who think they were there when it all happened. I am not going back into the history of everything, but before 1867, I think we all remember what happened in Canada. They had a war. The English declared war on the French culture. They lost the war and the ones that had money jumped on the boat and went back to France; the ones that did not have any money starved in Quebec. They starved completely; froze too. How are we going to eliminate all this? We would have to know how to perform miracles. I have not got that.
Then the British turned around and sent John A. Macdonald and Wilfrid Laurier into Canada to form a government. John A. Macdonald was the Conservative and Wilfrid Laurier was the Liberal. They drew up federalist state for all people, drew up the Confederation for all immigrants to come in and use their own religious organization, their own mother tongue and learn to speak English, or if it is going to be a French nation, then learn to speak French. What is the difference whether it is a French Canada or an English-speaking Canada? It is just up here. Then they formed the federal law and they also formed the provincial law, which makes bylaws come before the federal law. They also set up a Supreme Count of Canada and a Senate. I should have said before I am handicapped in pronouncing my words, but you will pronounce them whatever way you want and then they will be pronounced right.
The problem we have in Canada today is our school system and the only way we are going to eliminate this difference -- we have to turn around and get religious organizations or charity institutions -- we all owe our contributions concerning the charity institutions. Those charity institutions can get a lot of things set up, but school is not a charity institution. Religion should be kept in the churches and homes, not in schools.
Let's all go to one school and it does not matter what language it is going to be. We are all going to be educated in one language. Then we are going to eliminate all this hassling, who owns Canada, who owns the land and all this stuff. We will eliminate all that by education. The young people today who are going to school, if you ask them what two and two is, they could not say. Lots of them do not even know it is four. So it is all coming in this high technology. It is away beyond my understanding, but there is no doubt we have got lots of people in here understand it too.
So I will say on my behalf, you can take your own inventory and use your own conception of Canada. Use your own conception of God if you want. If you want to believe in Him, it is your privilege. If you do not want to believe in him, it is your business. There is no must that you must go to church; there is no must in the Constitution, any shape or form.
Quebec is talking about separating. How are they going to separate? Confederation represents the whole of Canada, not just Quebec and Newfoundland, the whole of Canada. We all have the rights, race, colour and creed, to learn to live and respect one another, live with one another. I moved all over Canada -- I am not going into all the details -- and nobody ever told me that I did not have the right to go there, the right to go here.
Who is bringing all this stuff up? I do not know. There is one thing that I cannot really understand. We have got French Canadians in Quebec, intelligent, lots of them; we have got French Canadians, intelligent females and males all over Canada. Who is bringing in francophones and anglophones? What are francophones and anglophones? You cannot be a French Canadian and be a francophone. And who has the authority to tell me I am an anglophone? I am not an anglophone, I am a Canadian. I got five brothers right here in Sudbury married five French Canadian girls. What are my niece and nephews? Are they francophones and anglophones or are they Canadians? This all has to be sorted out some way or another. I have not got the high technology to do all this.
1700
John A. Macdonald and Wilfrid Laurier drew all that up with the British. They delivered it here. The federal government owns all the resources. They own all the minerals, all the water, all the crown land. So where do the native people get that they own this land? I cannot figure that out. The land that I got, I bought and paid for it and I have not even got the rights of it. If the federal government wanted to run a highway through that property or put up a shopping mall, they would buy me out and move me away. I have not got the rights to that land; the federal government owns it all.
I am going to close off here. This is just my understanding and I am not asking anybody to buy anything I say or try to absorb anything I say. Use your own judgement and try and balance it out and push your federal government. The provincial government has no authority to interfere with these land titles and the native people. They all come under the federal government, and I wish somebody would push the federal government in there and say: "Here, if you don't want to do something, get the hell out. Why sit there?"
That is all I am going to say and I thank you very much for taking the time to listen. I said I would take about 10 minutes and that is all.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gray.
DIALOGUE SUDBURY
The Chair: I call next Robert Wiseman and Aurélien Dupuis from Dialogue Sudbury, our final presenters this afternoon.
M. Dupuis : Monsieur le Commissaire, distingués membres du comité, mesdames, messieurs, je m'appelle Aurélien Dupuis, je suis le président de Dialogue Sudbury, je suis père de trois beaux enfants, c'était inévitable et je suis passablement actif dans la société, dans la communauté de Sudbury depuis plusieurs années.
Pour débuter, j'aimerais citer de Camus ; grosso modo il a dit : «Si tu marches devant moi, je ne suis pas sûr de te suivre ; si tu marches derrière moi, je ne suis pas sûr de te conduire sur le bon chemin ; si tu le veux, marche à mes cotés et soyons amis». C'est un peu l'esprit qu'emprunte Dialogue Sudbury par la présentation qui va suivre.
Vous comprenez que ce n'est pas chose facile que de regrouper un organisme avec un préavis de cinq jours. Cependant, nos membres ont bien voulu répondre à l'appel. Ils sont venus nombreux hier soir discuter de l'avenir du Canada et de l'orientation politique que devrait peut-être adopter le gouvernement de l'Ontario. Nous nous sommes grattés les méninges et voici où ont mené nos réflexions, nos considérations et nos conclusions.
Tout d'abord, je dois vous dire que le but premier de Dialogue Sudbury est de promouvoir le dialogue entre les deux cultures publiques, comme l'a si bien dit un anglophone de l'Est. Nous cherchons aussi à créer une atmosphère de détente susceptible de conduire à la bonne entente, à l'harmonie et la paix ; bien entendu nous n'excluons pas les groupes ethniques et les aborigènes. Ces derniers sont les premiers citoyens canadiens. Tant qu'aux différents groupes ethniques, ils font partie de la mosaïque canadienne et nous nous efforçons de faire en sorte qu'ils se sentent bien dans leur peau ici en terre canadienne.
Avant de vous dire ce que pensent les membres de Dialogue Sudbury sur le sujet en question, nous tenons à féliciter le gouvernement de l'Ontario d'avoir pris l'initiative de créer un forum d'expression pour les citoyens de cette province. Nos membres s'accordent à dire : premièrement, que l'on doit respecter les deux langues officielles d'un bout à l'autre du pays sans équivoque ;
Deuxièmement, que l'on doit accorder aux Canadiens, peu importe leur origine, leurs croyances politique et religieuse les mêmes droits, les mêmes privilèges et les mêmes opportunités ;
Troisièmement, que la majorité anglophone devrait réaliser la situation précaire dans laquelle se trouve la minorité francophone au Canada en général mais principalement hors du Québec, et qu'elle devrait faire un effort tout à fait spécial pour comprendre et appuyer les francophones dans leurs justes revendications ;
Quatrièmement, que les différents groupes ethniques de la province et du pays devraient montrer de façon tangible leurs reconnaissances envers leur pays-hôte ;
Cinquièmement, qu'ils devraient accepter sans arrière-pensée les deux grandes cultures publiques de ce pays ;
Sixièmement, que nous sommes désormais une nation diversifiée et qu'on devra rédiger dans les plus brefs délais une constitution faite sur mesure pour répondre aux aspirations et aux besoins de tous les Canadiens sans exception ;
Septièmement, que c'est en découvrant nos vraies différences qu'on parviendra à les réconcilier ;
Huitièmement, que les Canadiens ne se connaissent pas et qu'ils ne connaissent pas leur histoire ;
Neuvièmement, que la constitution actuelle date de l'ère du cheval et de la calèche et qu'elle doit être modifiée pour répondre aux besoins et aux exigences d'aujourd'hui ;
Dixièmement, que la province de Québec a une vision très claire de ce qu'elle veut, ce qui n'est pas nécessairement le cas pour le reste du Canada ;
Onzièmement, que les minorités visibles s'opposent parfois aux gains faits par les francophones en matière de droits et que cette opposition n'est pas toujours justifiable ;
Douzièmement, que de graves injustices ont été commises envers les Franco-Canadiens sur le plan éducatif en particulier, et ceux-ci ont du rattrapage à faire. Faute d'éducation, les Franco-Canadiens ont eu de la difficulté dans le passé et même encore aujourd'hui à percer le marché du travail et à occuper des postes de responsabilité ;
Treizièmement, que le Canada doit sans faute respecter les droits et les coutumes ancestrales des autochtones. Nous avons une grande estimation pour ces gens du pays dont les coutumes, les valeurs et les traditions ont été chambardées depuis 400 ans.
En guise de conclusion, avant de céder la parole à M. Wiseman, mon collègue, depuis l'échec du Lac Meech nos gouvernements ont montré beaucoup de bonne volonté et un désir sincère, je crois, de régler les grands problèmes de l'heure à travers tout le Canada. La présente commission en est un bon exemple. Merci.
1710
Mr Wiseman: The Chair will have to listen, because I think my brief is unreadable, but it is brief. The time spent on this was pitiful, but we will have it typed for you in the next day.
First, on behalf of our organization, Dialogue Sudbury -- for those of you who did not understand the French language, Dialogue Sudbury is what it says, an organization giving dialogue to try to find out what each other's problems are and to help if possible. On behalf of our organization, I commend the government of Ontario and the commission for soliciting input from your constituents in these difficult times.
We have a vision of one country, indivisible, with 10 provinces plus two territories united, where there is equality and justice for all. There needs to be a strong central government with laws to enforce respect of the rights of the individual in both official language groups as well as in all minorities. Equality of opportunity in the workplace follows only from equal access to educational facilities. Tolerance and friendship has to be encouraged from both anglophone and francophone towards other minorities. Of course, for justice and equality for all we need all the help we can get from the provincial government in encouraging this.
We know the biggest hurdle is the feds. The province must enforce the federal laws so that minorities are not disadvantaged. This means that minority francophone and anglophone rights at times must be protected in areas where their particular population is small. Education can be restandardized. In my own opinion, I believe it should go back to mandatory French and English, and as well, where feasible, let's have heritage languages too. We already have this in the universities.
The provincial government must educate and inform the people as to the workings of the government more than it does, and both governments must tell the whole truth. If you are responsible and loyal, what have you got to hide? Credibility gaps occur from half-truths and covert actions. You must be open and honest to be considered honest.
The real issues of the first peoples of our nation must be addressed. Help solve his problems and he can help solve ours, particularly with nature and the environment. There again, the main holdup is the federal government.
We all need a vision of the future that is not shortsighted with respect to the environment, future generations, peace and many other problem areas. Listen to women, another minority group, at least the ones who are allowed to be active, and do not make them fight for equality. The increase in the percentage of women in the present provincial government is very heartening, but what about here? Two of 17: that is only 12%. They have much better peripheral vision and are not nearly as shortsighted as men. Women tend to worry more, starting in the home. They are usually more responsible in the home, and I think it goes without saying that they are more responsible in government. Support especially competent women and make it easier for them to take an active role in our provincial government and the rest will probably take care of itself.
Encourage Quebec to communicate its fears. I understand many of the fears and concerns of my anglophone friends, and they are real, but based on sensation often, and minor incidents. Give us the whole truth now. But it is probably already too late; the talk about the secession of Quebec is pretty strong. Since the law on two official languages was first enacted, some catch-up by the francophones has occurred and has produced concerns. These have been exaggerated, and sometimes this has occurred needlessly from too aggressive implementation of the new laws -- and it is not always done by francophones.
Let us have dialogue and friendships, not one-sided half-truths. The challenge is with each of us as well as for the provincial government. Sudbury has approximately 30% each of anglophone and francophone and we must be friends and supported as such by our provincial government. We need a francophone university in the north. Compared to the billions of dollars we waste annually in the federal government in servicing the debt, why would anyone complain about a university for francophones in the north? It is money well spent. The promised services for anglophones must come, but surely without incurring malice.
Let us encourage and have tolerance starting with our children, and have partnerships, man and woman, starting in the home. Let's be neighbours in the community and let's encourage friendship throughout Ontario, the nation and the world.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I really want to congratulate both of you. Could you tell us a little more about your organization? You seem to have solved a lot of problems that we hope we will be able to offer recommendations on. I would like to know if you have a constitution, the size of your membership, whether you have regular meetings, just very basic things, because I really do think you are a model.
Mr Wiseman: We have only 30. We are very new. We do not have a charter. What we are learning on both sides is that the causes of all these fears, many of them, are not real, generated from half-truths.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Have you used this book for your discussion, Changing for the Better, the book we are using?
Mr Wiseman: I phoned and asked for one. There will be one filled out by myself and I am encouraging other people to fill it out too.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: We thank you very much. I am very pleased you are going to present your thoughts to us in writing.
Mr Bisson: First, my colleague says she really appreciates the comments you made regarding women, something we obviously need to do a lot more on.
My question is very short. The most important underlying theme of what you are talking about is that by dialoguing and by talking to each other and trying to explain each other's differences -- yes, that means at times that we get hot-tempered and fight a little. We as Canadians are very good at that, we have a good history of fighting among each other and at the end of it coming to some sort of consensus and building a more caring society. You talked about dialogue and the importance of that, because at the end of the day you were able to better understand each other and each other's position.
But then you touched very shortly on the fact that the media also has a responsibility with regard to trying to report this, an issue as important as the dilemma we are in right now, in such a way that it is not sensationalism. One argument that could be put forward is that the media, because we are a democratic society, have the night to report the news as they see fit. How do you protect the rights of the media, because we are in a free and democratic society? Where do you draw the line? I understand what you are saying and I agree with you, but also we have to say to the media that we recognize that it is a democratic society and they must report the news the way they see it. What wisdom can you give them and where do you draw the line?
M. Dupuis : Pour commencer, les membres de Dialogue Sudbury ne sont pas nécessairement d'accord sur tous les sujets. Il y a au sein de Dialogue Sudbury des contradictions ; nous ne sommes pas toujours d'accord mais au moins nous avons cette volonté d'écouter ce que l'autre a à dire. Je crois que ceci est important parce que si on se ferme les oreilles, si on ne veut rien entendre, on n'apprendra jamais rien au sujet de l'autre et vice versa.
Quant à votre référence sur les médias, je crois que les médias parfois vont un peu trop loin et exagèrent l'importance de certaines activités au sein de la communauté de Sudbury. Je crois qu'on va vraiment trop loin et que souvent, au lieu de résoudre certains problèmes, apporter certaines solutions, c'est le contraire qui se produit. Les gens deviennent négatifs et puis confus et ne savent où donner de la tête. C'est à peu près tout ce que je pourrais vous dire présentement.
M. Bisson : Ce que vous dites c'est que les médias ont une responsabilité de faire le reportage d'une manière qui est égale, donner les deux côtés de l'histoire d'une manière responsable.
M. Dupuis : Oui, de façon aussi responsable que possible.
Mr Wiseman: I would like to say that there is too much apathy too. Perhaps all the media are getting is sensational stories. It is not only the individual member of the constituency who has the responsibility. I believe especially that government, let's say the provincial government, should lead in this. We do not see enough of the facts coming from the government. I believe they should not be afraid to speak out, call it the way they see it. Do not worry about the vote. It will be there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup. We will end the afternoon session at this point, and recess until 7 o'clock this evening for the evening session. Thank you very much to everyone.
The committee recessed at 1724.
The committee resumed at 1909.
The Chair: I would like to call the evening session to order, please. On behalf of the committee I would like to welcome those people who are here in the audience, here being of course the council chamber in Sudbury, for those people who may be following us over the parliamentary channel.
We had a full morning and afternoon session here today and we have a full evening of speakers before us again. As I did earlier on in order for us to allow some of the other people who have indicated, since the list was drawn up, that they also wish to speak, I would ask those people who are speaking as individuals to try to limit their comments to about 10 minutes, and those that are speaking on behalf of organizations to limit their comments to about 20 minutes. In that way, we will be able to accommodate the additional speakers as well.
CARREFOUR FRANCOPHONE
The Chair: I will begin by calling Alain Harvey from the Centre culturel du Carrefour francophone. You can use either the podium or one of those chairs, whichever you prefer.
M. Harvey : Je désire tout d'abord vous remercier pour le forum que vous accordez aux Ontariens et Ontariennes afin de nous permettre de nous prononcer sur notre vision de la Confédération canadienne et de la place que doit prendre l'Ontario dans cette Confédération.
J'aimerais tout d'abord vous lire un poème d'un des plus illustres poètes franco-ontariens, Jean-Marc Dalpé, qui parle de l'enracinement profond que les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes ont à ce pays.
LES MURS DE NOS VILLAGES
Les murs de nos villages se souviennent
Les murs de nos villages se rappellent
et ils nous chuchotent parfois à l'oreille des
drôles d'histoires.
Les murs de nos Main Street
se souviennent
de nos fanfares, de nos processions de la Fête-
Dieu
et de nos parades de la Saint-Jean...
Les murs de nos Main Street
se souviennent aussi
de nos marchés à ciel ouvert et de nos magasins
générals
avec le poêle à bois pour les vieux
et leur coup de Gin DeKuyper après la messe.
Les murs de nos églises
se souviennent
de nos baptêmes, de nos noces, de nos
enterrements
de nos Noël et de nos crèches où l'on couchait
l'enfant-poupée sur la paille de nos champs de
foin...
Les murs de nos écoles
se souviennent
des rangs deux par deux de tous nos visages
d'enfants,
des a-b-c à transcrire entre les lignes
sans barbouiller...
Les murs de nos écoles
se souviennent aussi...
de la leçon d'histoire qui commence
«Sur les Plaines d'Abraham...»
Les murs de nos maisons
se souviennent
des mains qui les ont bâtis
et de celles de nos grand-mères
qui sentaient la farine et le bon pain...
Les murs de nos cimetières
se souviennent
de ceux qui sont restés
et qui ne sont pas partis ailleurs.
Les murs de nos usines
qui ne sont jamais les nôtres
se souviennent
de notre sueur pour la p'tite paye
et de tous nos doigts perdus dans les
machines.
Les murs de nos usines
se souviennent aussi
de notre première grève
et de quelques vitres cassées
par nos meilleurs joueurs de balle-molle.
Les murs de nos villages
se souviennent...
de nos rires, de nos lames,
de nos peines, de nos joies,
de nos cris, de nos silences,
de la force de nos bras,
de notre coeur au ventre,
de notre parole en sacre et en poésie
et de nos racines dans ce pays
aussi creuses que celles d'un vieux chêne.
Sur les murs de nos villages
dans notre langue couleur terre
couleur misère
Nous avons inscrit nos vies et nos hivers,
de père en fils, de mère en fille.
Sur tous les murs de nos villages
dans notre langue couleur terre
couleur misère
nous avons égratigné à même les ongles
de nos mains sales de travailleurs,
les lettres et les visages de notre Histoire.
Les murs de nos villages se souviennent
Les murs de nos villages se rappellent
et si parfois ils nous bercent et nous chuchotent
à l'oreille
leurs doux souvenirs...
Au matin,
nous avions nos terres à défricher...
nous avions à bâtir
les murs de nos maisons
les murs de nos églises
les murs de nos Main Street
les murs de nos écoles.
Les murs de nos villages se souviennent
les murs de nos villages se rappellent
nos racines dans ce pays
aussi creuses que celles d'un chêne...
Les violons de nos villages
nous hurlent des gigues assoiffées de Liberté
et qui ne veulent dire qu'une chose :
Icitte c'est chez nous.
Icitte c'est chez nous et peu importe ce qu'il adviendra du Canada ou du Québec, nous serons toujours ici chez nous. Il s'agit maintenant de définir ce que nous attendons, en tant que Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, de ce pays.
Je crois profondément qu'il est encore temps de sauver le Canada, mais nous devons accepter de modifier radicalement notre approche et nos structures. La constitution existe afin de définir les paramètres dans lesquels nous fonctionnons comme nation. Elle définit les liens qui nous unissent et définit la distribution des pouvoirs. Ceci n'est pas immuable et doit changer comme la population change. La Confédération doit pouvoir se redéfinir.
Il est très important que l'on reconnaisse l'apport important au pays qu'ont fait les peuples autochtones, les Français et les Anglais et que l'on reconnaisse à ces trois groupes l'égalité et l'autonomie nécessaires pour assurer leur survie en tant que peuples. Les Franco-Ontariens sont en droit de s'attendre à ce respect de base quoi qu'il puisse arriver au pays ou au Québec.
Il faut que l'on redonne aux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes le contrôle de leur avenir. Pour ce faire nous devons avoir : la gestion de nos établissements scolaires, du primaire jusqu'au postsecondaire, et ce bien sûr avec les garderies ; tous les services des gouvernements fédéral, provincial et municipal ainsi que les services de leurs organismes en français. Il faut la reconnaissance du français comme une des langues officielles de l'Ontario ; il faut également un financement adéquat des établissements communautaires, culturels et artistiques franco-ontariens afin de permettre à ceux-ci d'avoir un environnement et de rayonner dans leur communauté.
Les anglophones, francophones et peuples autochtones à la grandeur du pays sont en droit de recevoir tous ces droits et ces services. La minorité anglophone du Québec se voit déjà reconnaître la plupart de ces droits. Le Nouveau-Brunswick est également en avant de nous à ce chapitre.
Nous sommes la province qui comptons le plus grand nombre de francophones hors Québec, nous devrions être les leaders en matière de droits des francophones.
Je terminerai en vous faisant quelques suggestions pour les prochaines discussions constitutionnelles. Il sera important de reconnaître que le Québec est une société distincte, qu'elle a des besoins particuliers et que la Confédération sous sa forme actuelle ne répond plus à leurs aspirations. Il faut leur reconnaître ce droit de choisir eux-mêmes leur avenir. L'Ontario par son poids démographique est le leader de cette Confédération canadienne. Nous ne devons pas avoir peur du changement, de la redéfinition de notre pays. Nous devons aller au-devant des changements et appuyer une restructuration aussi majeure qu'il faut pour sauver le pays. Il faut aussi y prendre notre place.
M. le Président : Il y a des questions ? Monsieur Beer pour commencer.
M. Beer : Merci beaucoup. C'est sans doute la première présentation poétique que nous avons reçue et nous vous en remercions. Ma question : pour les francophones en dehors du Québec, est-ce qu'il n'y a pas un risque que, dans une sorte de décentralisation du pays comme prévoit le rapport Allaire, il y a des problèmes possibles pour les francophones hors du Québec, et n'y a-t-il pas peut-être un certain dilemme pour la communauté franco-ontarienne essayant de rencontrer les besoins du Québec, de les appuyer, mais en même temps d'entendre dire : «Bien, qu'est-ce que ça va nous faire pour l'avenir» ? Comment voyez-vous cette situation ?
M. Harvey : Ce que je trouve triste peut-être dans la question c'est finalement que ça entend que les Franco-Ontariens, on leur donne des services, on leur donne des droits en fonction du Québec. Si le Québec demeure, on leur accorde des droits. On ne reconnaît pas aux Franco-Ontariens des droits parce qu'ils les ont, mais on devient des otages à ce moment-là. Est-ce qu'on n'a pas été des otages depuis le début de la Confédération dans ce sens ?
Je me dis que si le Québec se sépare, il va falloir qu'on continue à respecter quand même les droits et les intérêts des Franco-Ontariens, non pas parce qu'il fait plaisir au Québec, mais parce que c'est notre droit, c'est parce qu'on est là depuis 300 et quelques années. On est là depuis le début. Peut être que le problème qui arrive présentement avec le Québec, c'est qu'on a refusé de dealer trop longtemps avec des questions, ce qui fait qu'à un moment donné on se ramasse avec un abcès qui crève. On se ramasse avec un gros problème au lieu d'avoir pris soin de ces questions-là. J'espère que ce n'est pas ça qui va se passer avec les Franco-Ontariens, mais qu'on va s'occuper de nos problèmes, puis régler puis s'assurer d'une justice équitable pour tous les Ontariens.
M. le Président : Il y a d'autres questions. Monsieur Bisson, brièvement, s'il vous plaît.
M. Bisson : Brièvement, je ne suis pas connu pour être bref. La grosse question dans cette situation est que, comme francophones, on dit qu'on a besoin de prendre le contrôle de nos institutions éducationnelles, gouvernementales etc. On a besoin de faire à ce que les services soient requis pour demeurer francophones et vivre une vie francophone en Ontario. On a besoin d'avoir ces services en place et on dit que c'est important qu'à un point la province reconnaisse ce fait et déclare l'Ontario officiellement bilingue.
Il y a des craintes dans la communauté anglophone vis-à-vis de cette question. Comme francophone ici de Sudbury, qu'est-ce tu peux dire à l'autre communauté pour essayer de répondre aux craintes ? C'est la grosse affaire. Des fois on ne comprend pas totalement la position de l'autre communauté, de la même manière que la nôtre n'est pas comprise.
1920
M. Harvey : Je pense qu'au niveau de l'autre partie de la population -- on peut les diviser en deux. Il y a des anglophones qui sont prêts à écouter puis il y a ceux qui ne sont juste pas prêts à entendre, qui ne sont pas prêts à discuter. Je crois que si tu arrives à des anglophones avec des faits, avec réellement ce que c'est que le bilinguisme, ce que ça veut dire d'offrir des services en français : «Non, ça vous enlève pas des jobs», je veux dire que les gens sont inquiets ; «Non, on n'est pas en train de rentrer le français dans... We're not throwing French down your throat», je veux dire que ces gens vont être capables de comprendre. Quand on regarde la situation, mettons qu'on peut facilement comparer, on est capable de le faire au Québec.
Les anglophones sont capables d'avoir leurs institutions, sont capables de les gérer eux-mêmes. Ça se fait dans plein d'autres pays. Pourquoi est-ce qu'ici on ne serait pas capable de le faire ? Ça ne nous coûtera pas tant que ça. Ce ne serait pas des choses qui vont réellement affecter tant que ça la communauté anglophone. Il y a des ajustements, ça veut dire qu'on accepte que d'autres gens ont le droit d'être différents, ont le droit de faire les choses selon leurs différences, et puis c'est peut-être qu'il y a des gens qui ne sont pas capables de le faire.
Mais je pense que les anglophones en général sont capables de comprendre et d'accepter ça. C'est évident qu'il existe présentement en Ontario des groupes qui ne sont pas prêts à entendre ou à regarder, qui entendent ce qu'ils veulent, qui voient ce qu'ils veulent et qui ne sont pas prêts à entendre d'autre chose. Mais à ces gens-là je ne peux rien faire. Les autres vont comprendre le bons sens, j'en suis persuadé.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Harvey.
L'ASSOCIATION DES ÉTUDIANT(E)S
FRANCOPHONES DE LA LAURENTIENNE
M. le Président : Je vais appeler maintenant Didier Kabagema de l'Association des étudiants francophones de l'Université Laurentienne.
M. Kabagema : Je dois d'abord spécifier que mon mémoire parlera en particulier de la création d'institutions postcollégiales en français. Il n'est pas hors sujet parce qu'il prend en compte l'idée de L'Ontario de demain, c'est-à-dire l'Ontario où les communautés francophones et anglophones travailleraient ensemble et où on aurait une élite francophone qui serait un atout pour l'Ontario.
Tout d'abord, je souligne que l'Association des étudiants francophones regroupe plus de 850 membres et elle a pour mandat depuis 1989 d'oeuvrer pour justement faire en sorte qu'il y ait une université homogène française, donc qui est création d'une élite francophone qui puisse se développer dans sa province et s'épanouir totalement.
Sur le plan sociologique, nous dirons que le Franco-Ontarien se prénomme souvent Franco-Ontarien ou alors Ontarois, bref on peut sentir un besoin de s'identifier, de se définir et le fait qu'il a -- ça dépend justement, du sud on du nord de l'Ontario -- un nom pour se définir montre qu'il y a justement un certain problème vis-à-vis de son identité.
Depuis un certain nombre d'années, depuis disons une quinzaine d'années le milieu culturel et artistique de l'Ontario est très en évolution. Il y a des pièces de théâtre montées, il y a des écrivains, il y a des chanteurs. Il y a donc une activité culturelle qui se développe et qui montre que la vitalité des francophones en Ontario n'est pas éteinte, au contraire. Elle est effervescente et elle se développe justement à côté de l'effervescence du Canadien français du Québec, du Québécois. C'est une communauté qui est à part entière, qui se développe toute seule et qui devrait normalement atteindre un certain épanouissement. Seulement, avec l'environnement dans lequel ils sont, ils n'arrivent pas à avoir une certaine affirmation d'eux-mêmes, ils n'arrivent pas à s'épanouir, ils n'arrivent pas à se développer complètement.
Nous désirons vivre en français. Qu'est-ce que vivre en français ? Nous entendons par «vivre en français» : étudier, s'affirmer, participer, parler, écrire et créer en français, non pas parce que nous ne voulons pas vivre en anglais, mais parce que nous savons très bien que l'Ontario est une province où il y a la deuxième communauté la plus grande de francophones au Canada. Donc, nous voulons vivre en français parce que cela permettra justement de nous enrichir, d'apporter beaucoup plus pour l'Ontario en entier.
À l'heure actuelle, je prendrai l'exemple de mon université, l'Université Laurentienne, qui est une université dite bilingue. Il y a un grand taux d'échec dans les tests de compétence linguistique. Le français, justement, connaît beaucoup de problèmes. Si l'on se fie aux statistiques rapportées, en 1988, sur 300 candidats, 209 ont connu un échec, c'est-à-dire plus de 70% dans le test de compétence linguistique en français. Un si grand nombre montre qu'il y a de sérieux problèmes. La maîtrise justement du français est en baisse tout simplement encore parce qu'il n'y a pas d'épanouissement, il n'y a pas de développement de la communauté francophone en Ontario.
Je prendrai un autre exemple. En 1989, 276 étudiants sur un total de 389 étudiants, 71%, ont raté. Cette preuve d'assimilation est un des aspects les plus compromettants de notre système. Donc, la cohabitation devrait se faire avec une certaine homogénéité des deux côtés de la communauté pour que chacun puisse évoluer et qu'il n'y ait pas un lexique qui soit complètement mélangé dans le langage.
Il n'y a pas seulement le verbe de Patrice Desbiens -- pour citer un autre poète très connu au nord de l'Ontario -- qui «trébuche sur la langue». Les étudiants francophones de l'Ontario trébuchent sur leur langue. Cette inaptitude, on doit essayer de l'arrêter, on doit essayer de changer. Cette inaptitude changera et pour cela il faudrait justement qu'il y ait des institutions autonomes à nous.
Je vous donnerai un autre exemple, très rapidement. C'est le macaron que le regroupement francophone a créé il n'y a pas longtemps, un macaron qui crie justement le besoin de s'exprimer en français, le besoin, le malaise au sein de la jeunesse ontarioise. Ce macaron symbolise bien ce besoin. C'est un macaron où c'est écrit : «Estie parle moé en français». C'est justement parce qu'ils ont le besoin de le faire, ils en ont envie. Ils se sentent frustrés par ce problème et ce macaron est frappant mais c'est quand même symbolique.
Ce qui est paradoxal dans la Loi 8, pour parler du postsecondaire, du postcollégial homogène, c'est qu'on nous donne le droit de nous servir de la langue française. On a le droit, on nous permet d'être servis en français, c'est un droit acquis avec la Loi 8 mais ce qui est étonnant c'est qu'on n'a pas encore réussi à bénéficier d'institutions complètement françaises. Je trouve ça paradoxal. On vous dit d'un côté qu'on vous donne le droit d'utiliser votre langue, de vous faire servir en français, mais dans un autre cas on n'arrive pas à étudier complètement en français. Comment s'épanouir ? Comment pouvoir justement travailler, oeuvrer de façon complète et représenter l'Ontario ? Je trouve qu'il faudrait réviser cette position.
Donc, je pense que la mise en place d'un établissement universitaire de langue française établira un dynamisme communautaire indiscutable.
Je terminerai en disant qu'il n'y a vraiment pas de temps à perdre, que les francophones désirent ardemment se pencher sur d'autres problèmes, des problèmes plus importants que le problème comme par exemple l'environnement, qui est un problème assez important, les problèmes de guerre, la paix dans le monde. Mais ceux-là justement ne peuvent pas, parce que linguistiquement ils sont entravés, ils ont un handicap par rapport aux autres. Il faudrait y remédier le plus tôt possible. Donc, la revendication première, c'est justement qu'il y ait, comme cette commission, une commission consultative pour la création d'une université homogène en français. Je vous remercie.
1930
Mr Malkowski: I was very impressed with your presentation. It was very well organized. It really hit me. It has many parallels with the experience in the deaf community, in that at Gallaudet University, the only university in the world for deaf people, the written language is English but obviously the social and the educational language should be American sign language. Of course, the argument goes on that in a bilingual centre, do you have English and ASL? But we argue that you need to be proud of your own language.
To get back to the point, I see the parallel in your community that you need to have an institution that exposes students and the community to the French culture and language. I strongly believe that in Ontario we have to support our students who are francophone. If we were to give this positive cultural institution where people could come together and be exposed to the language and the poetry and the artistic community -- you seem to suggest this is long overdue, but what I am wondering is whether the Charter of Rights really guarantees full access to that, if indeed there are changes in the country, and if you feel that is a recommendation we should include, as you seem to think that culture and French studies are very important to the survival of your community. I would like to know what you think about that.
[Interruption]
M. le Président : Il n'y avait pas de traduction ?
M. Kabagema : Non, pas de traduction.
M. le Président : Non, la possibilité était là ; peut-être que l'appareil ne fonctionne pas.
M. Bisson : Je pourrais poser brièvement la question, même si je ne peux pas m'exprimer d'une manière aussi adéquate que mon confrère. Je crois ce qu'il demandait indirectement, c'est que lui-même comme individu de la communauté sourde-muette reconnaît la valeur d'être capable d'avoir une éducation dans sa langue à lui, que lui par exemple à fait son université à Gallaudet -- c'est une université qui est uniquement créée pour les personnes sourdes -- d'avoir une communauté à elles, de trouver leur place, d'avoir un milieu, comment dire, «safe». Je ne suis pas un traducteur, comme on voit.
The Chair: What was the last part of your question?
M. Bisson : Quoiqu'il arrive dans la communauté francophone sourde-muette, c'est aussi important pour les francophones muets d'être capables de communiquer dans leur langage à eux qui est appelé LSQ. Comment voyais-tu ça vis-à-vis de la situation des francophones ? En d'autres mots, les anglophones sourds et muets ont leur langage à eux, ASL, les francophones LSQ, qui est une reconnaissance des deux langages. Comment est-ce que vous voyez ça en parallèle avec votre situation ?
M. Kabagema : Si j'ai bien compris la question, je pense que la situation des francophones sourds et muets est, disons, aussi importante que la situation des étudiants francophones. Je pense qu'il faudrait absolument que les personnes de toute communauté qui ont besoin de s'exprimer à leur façon, qui est particulière, devraient avoir les possibilités d'évoluer d'une certaine homogénéité dans leurs institutions pour qu'elles puissent complètement étudier et s'exprimer entre elles de façon homogène.
Mr Malkowski: It is important that we support the concerns, especially total accessibility in French universities and institutions, to provide access to all the students, especially in Quebec, so they follow the same philosophy we have in Ontario and may follow suit.
M. Kabagema : C'est en anglais.
M. le Président : Il y a un problème.
Mr Malkowski: I think it is important for all the community members and committee members to understand what total access means, especially when we are providing access and funding to federal institutions to look at this issue. Suppose we had something in Quebec, a federal institution and you had it federally run, but also having the cultural exposure and embedding the philosophy of that particular community.
M. Kabagema : Encore, si j'ai bien compris, parce que ça dépend de la traduction, et je pense que je vais me répéter, je crois qu'il faut assurer à la communauté la possibilité d'essayer de s'exprimer, d'évoluer dans son milieu. Je pense que le problème des fonds est un problème mineur parce que comparativement à la communauté majoritaire, la communauté minoritaire ne demandera jamais autant de fonds.
On sait très bien qu'on peut développer une université, une institution postcollégiale en français sans pour autant dépenser des tonnes d'argent. Cela est possible. Petit à petit, elle peut très bien financièrement évoluer et au début on n'a pas besoin de quelque chose d'immense.
LUC COMEAU
M. le Président : Je voudrais appeler maintenant Luc Comeau.
M. Comeau : Avant de commencer, je veux juste faire un commentaire au sujet de ce qui vient de se dérouler. C'est peut-être drôle et c'est peut-être frustrant, mais je trouve que ça explique vraiment bien les difficultés qu'on vit en tant que Canadiens francophones, anglophones, sourds et muets. Par contre, je crois que ça vaut la peine. Je pense que ça vaut l'effort, ça vaut la patience, qu'on doit dépenser un peu pour se comprendre. Il faut aller au-delà de ces problèmes de communication.
J'ai choisi de vous parler aujourd'hui à titre individuel, à titre personnel, comme citoyen ontarien, franco-ontarien et canadien. Je tiens à ces trois appartenances et je suis fier des trois, bien que je m'identifie principalement comme Franco-Ontarien.
J'ai choisi de vous parler d'un sujet spécifique, un sujet qui est drôlement important si on veut continuer d'avoir un Canada. Mon message se résume en un mot clé, un mot qu'on doit mettre en oeuvre si on veut continuer de bâtir un pays qui est l'envie du monde. Ce mot-là, c'est «tolérance». C'est une valeur qui est partagée par plusieurs Canadiens. Je crois que c'est une valeur qui nous définit. Laissez-moi m'expliquer.
1940
Le Canada, l'existence de notre pays, est difficile à expliquer. C'est contre les forces économiques, le climat, l'isolement qu'on s'est bâti un pays. Le Canada est un triomphe de la volonté humaine. C'est aussi un triomphe de la tolérance, de la diversité de ses habitants.
Bob Rae a raison quand il dit que si le Canada n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer. Le Canada est un défi humain, c'est le défi qu'on s'est donné de vivre côte à côte. Ce n'est pas facile parce qu'on n'est pas tous pareils. Nos différences de langue et de culture cachent aussi le fait qu'on est tous unique et qu'on a tous le droit de vivre comme on veut.
La tolérance se manifeste quand des gens acceptent que l'égalité ne veut pas nécessairement dire qu'on doit tous être pareils. Ça se manifeste quand les gens acceptent que certains groupes de la société ont le droit de prendre leur place autant que d'autres. Ceux et celles qui sont tellement cyniques qu'ils disent que nos différences nous désunissent n'ont pas compris le rêve du Canada.
Ces vieux cyniques voient nos différences comme étant un problème. Moi, je vois ça plutôt comme une richesse, comme quelque chose à conserver et à promouvoir. C'est pour ça que je crois que le mot clé au Canada aujourd'hui c'est tolérance. Malheureusement, plusieurs de mes concitoyens ont abandonné le rêve d'un Canada diversifié et tolérant. Ces gens-là veulent une seule langue, pas de turbans dans la Gendarmerie royale du Canada, pas d'immigrants. Bref, ils ne veulent rien savoir de tout ce qui ne correspond pas à leur petite définition de la réalité.
Ces gens-là disent que le bilinguisme et le multiculturalisme nous désunissent. Quand je les écoute parler, je comprends plutôt qu'ils n'ont aucune tolérance pour leur voisin qui est différent d'eux. Je crois que c'est plutôt ça qui est dangereux pour l'unité du pays.
Donc, je vous dis que ce n'est pas ce point de vue-là qui doit prévaloir dans la redéfinition de notre pays. Plutôt, il faudrait définir notre pays comme un endroit où les gens ont le droit d'être ce qu'ils veulent être, un endroit où les autochtones, les Franco-Ontariens et chacun de nous pouvons nous épanouir, prendre notre place et nous faire traiter avec respect. Dans cette redéfinition ou restructuration, l'Ontario a un rôle de leadership à assumer. L'Ontario se doit de reconnaître le droit des Franco-Ontariens à la gestion de ses institutions, de la garderie à l'université en passant par les centres culturels.
Ça vaut la peine de le faire, ça vaut la peine de bâtir un pays où le racisme, l'intolérance et le melting pot sont choses du passé, un pays où on reconnaît que nous devons nous assurer que tout le monde a la chance de s'épanouir, que ça prenne des programmes d'action affirmative pour les femmes ou du financement spécial pour les centres culturels francophones ou les friendship centres pour les autochtones, peu importe. On devrait accepter que ces choses-là ne sont pas des dépenses mais plutôt des investissements dans la grande richesse de notre pays : nos citoyens et citoyennes.
La reconnaissance de la dualité linguistique du pays, même si le Québec se sépare, parce que nous en serons toujours là, la reconnaissance des droits ancestraux des autochtones, de la diversité ethnoculturelle de notre population, tout ça c'est essentiel pour la survie du Canada. Ça coûte moins cher d'avoir des programmes de langues officielles et de soutien au multiculturalisme que de se retrouver avec une majorité de la population qui est aliénée d'elle-même et qui parle la langue d'un autre.
C'est juste quand on va arrêter de dire à la majorité de notre population qu'ils et elles ne sont pas corrects parce qu'ils ne sont pas des «hommes, blancs» qu'on va réaliser le plus grand rêve du Canada, celui d'un pays où le respect des différences figure au premier plan.
Il ne faut pas abandonner notre rêve commun d'un Canada tolérant, surtout lorsqu'on considère que la grande majorité des jeunes Canadiens, anglophones comme francophones, y croient. Ne détruisez pas mon pays. Je suis jeune et je veux aider à bâtir un Canada qui respecte le droit d'être de ses citoyens.
Mr Offer: In your presentation, you have spoken about restructuring the Constitution and, if I got one other point in your presentation, you spoke about the need to recognize two languages and even if Quebec leaves it does not matter; there is still that need.
My question to you -- I know this is a question that has not only been posed earlier this evening but certainly on other occasions -- is if you might share with me whether, if there is a distancing of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada, does that not impact on the principle of the founding nations? I recognize there are those who say there are not just two founding countries and maybe that should be expanded. None the less, does it not impact on the principle of the two founding nations, and as a result of this distancing of Quebec from the rest of Canada, so we distance that initial principle, which may have a negative impact on the interests of francophones, Franco-Ontarians?
I would like to receive from you your sense, your impression as to this possibility.
M. Comeau : D'accord. Premièrement, lorsqu'on parle de la thèse des deux peuples fondateurs, on parle d'histoire. Je vous rappelle qu'après 1534, jusqu'en 1867, ou 1840 avec l'Acte d'union, les deux peuples fondateurs, ce n'était pas les frontières du Québec. Il y avait une présence française en Amérique, il y avait une présence anglaise en Amérique qui sont venues rejoindre la présence autochtone.
Quand on parle de deux peuples fondateurs, ça ne veut pas nécessairement dire deux peuples fondateurs égalent Québec et Anglo-Canadiens ; ça veut dire Canadiens français et Canadiens anglais. Dans cette optique-là je crois qu'un Canada tolérant ne pourrait même pas envisager la possibilité de se définir comme un pays, sans le Québec, qui ne respecte pas la langue française.
On parle beaucoup d'assimilation. L'assimilation fait des ravages. Elle fait des ravages non pas parce que le Québec veut se séparer, mais parce que les communautés anglophones du Canada mettent les bâtons dans les roues lorsque les francophones veulent gérer leurs propres écoles, leurs propres centres culturels, toutes ces choses-là. Ce n'est pas une question de soustraire la thèse des deux peuples fondateurs si le Québec se sépare, à mon humble avis, parce que le Canada a toujours été un pays où les gens reconnaissent qu'on a le droit d'être différent, on a le droit de vivre ce qu'on a envie de vivre. Je trouve que c'est peut-être menace dernièrement, mais je crois que c'est quelque chose qui a toujours été présent au Canada.
Pour répondre à votre question, si le Québec se séparait, moi je continuerais, comme Franco-Ontarien, à me battre pour -- Ce n'est pas parce que j'aime me battre, je préférerais juste passer à autre chose comme Didier a dit, mais je continuerais à dire écoutez, on est Canadiens. On est tous Canadiens. Les francophones sont aussi Canadiens que n'importe qui d'autre. Donc, reconnaissez qu'on a le droit d'être distincts tout comme les autochtones ont le droit d'être distincts, tout comme les Italo-Canadiens ont le droit d'être distincts au sein d'un Canada tolérant.
M. le Président : Il y a une autre question.
M. Winninger : Je suis d'accord avec vous que la tolérance et le respect sont significatifs. Cependant, le problème pour moi est comment on peut écrire la tolérance et le respect dans un accord constitutionnel. Avez-vous une réponse à cela ?
1950
M. Comeau : Je vous préviens, toute réponse que je ferais, je pense tout haut, donc ne me citez pas. Je pense qu'on n'a pas à écrire la tolérance dans la constitution canadienne. Je pense qu'on n'a pas à écrire la tolérance dans les valeurs de notre population. Je pense qu'elle est déjà là. Par contre, je pense qu'il faudrait qu'on reconnaisse chacun comme citoyen, que nos institutions gouvernementales, au cours des 120 dernières années, n'ont pas fait assez d'efforts pour reconnaître le caractère distinct des communautés qui vivent à l'intérieur du pays.
Donc, lorsqu'on parle d'écrire une tolérance au sein de la constitution, ça serait tout simplement consacrer un principe qui existe déjà au Canada au sein de la population ou de la plupart de la population. Tout ce qui resterait à faire est de s'entendre. Que le Québec se sépare ou non, ça peut avoir un impact mais nous aussi on a droit à l'autodétermination tout comme le peuple québécois y a droit. Donc, au sens d'un peuple, ça nous importe peu. C'est un peuple distinct comme les Américains le sont pour vous.
Et puis, je pense qu'on aurait juste à s'entendre pour dire que, dans une constitution canadienne, on veut accorder le droit aux communautés de gérer leur propre avenir. En écrivant ça dans la constitution et puis en reconnaissant comme institution gouvernementale qu'on a des droits qui nous incombent sous cet aspect-là, je pense qu'on libérerait une force créatrice incroyable chez les autochtones, chez les francophones, chez les Ukrainiens canadiens, chez les Italo-Canadiens. On aurait juste à dire aux gens «Faites vos affaires comme vous voulez», et puis les gens se mettraient à vivre.
M. Winninger : Merci. Ce n'est pas une question simple.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Comeau.
JOE GIGNAC
The Chair: I call Joe Gignac.
Mr Gignac: My name is Joe Gignac and I am from Sudbury. I am here to talk to you a little bit about the deaf community and our frustration with the school system and what it is like for us growing up in a school system which forces you to be oral, a system which is foreign to us. It does not equip us with communication skills. I know of a lot of disciplinary things which happen to us by the teachers. They hit us. It affects our self-esteem and we end up going to therapists later on in our teens to try to reverse this low self-esteem, and this is the fault of the educational system.
Finger-spelling is not a very good way to learn language. We do not acquire the proper English skills. Many of the faculty who teach us do not have the proper sign language abilities themselves. Therefore, the educational system lacks and is not good for us. What we want is to have certified and experienced teachers who know how to teach deaf children. For example, when I was growing up, I felt I suffered in the educational system and that all the decisions were made outside of our family.
There is the total communication system, which is a form of teaching us English, where you say, "The car is broken down," those kinds of things, but in our language the concept is lost. For deaf people, we use American sign language and in our system it is very clear; it follows the concept. So in class you are forced to sort of try and memorize others' rules of English and we sit there saying yes, yes, yes, but do we really understand what is being said? No, we do not. We simply memorize. It is like scripting. We have memorized that little script but we do not really understand what it means.
My first language is American sign language, and when it comes to trying to lip-read people or understand the English language, myself and the deaf community get very frustrated. So when we enter into the community we end up feeling a bit like outsiders. We feel safer within our own culture and within our own community, but what is true is that we often feel that we are 10 years behind the mainstream of society.
ASL is a rich and beautiful culture, but until recently it was forbidden even in schools for the deaf here in Ontario. They used to punish us. They used to tell us: "No, you have to keep your hands behind your back. You have to finger-spell in English. You will have to lip-read. You have to read and write in English." We were programmed to speak English, but they did not teach us language. It ended up just frustrating us and affecting our self esteem.
You see that in terms of post-secondary students now where you do not see many deaf people going on to further their education, so we need to improve that.
What the system seems to be stuck on is compulsory English programming for students thinking that this is the way for us and ignoring the fact that our community is very rich in language. Thank heavens for the deaf community, because without them I do not know where I would have been. They have been a strong resource for me, for my language and for my life experiences. When I want to share my experiences from home or school or whatever, I have those places I can go to where it is safe. It is in my community and my language.
I see the parallels within the French community where they talk about what it is like to go outside that environment and feel a bit like a foreigner or an outsider and know what that feels like, the discrimination, and to know what it feels like to come back to a place where your language and your culture and your values are understood.
Now the anglophones or the people who teach English -- I can give you an example. They would say, "Your nose is running." Okay, the nose, and to sign it in English you would have to say, "The nose is running." It would look like it is literally running. But in ASL that makes no sense. You just say your nose is dripping like this, like you have a cold. But if we were to sign it in English, it looks like your nose is running, which of course is impossible, because your nose cannot run.
This is the kind of scripting we have to do, and if you can pass the scripting you get the A and away you go out into the community. But do you have those life skills and that concept in order to use the language? Not really. So we have a concern. We would like to see deaf children learning our community language, American sign language, learning true language and being able to play with that and then go to English as a second Language and then develop those.
For example, if your car is broken down, if you have to sign that in English, a car breaks down, break and down. How can a car break down? In ASL, of course, it is very different. You would just simply sign, "The car is no good," or "The car hasn't passed the test."
These are the kinds of things we need to see happen in the school system. We need to see our language being used in the school system and the community, so that children can learn and so that children can get the kinds of skills they need. I want to see a difference from when I went to school and how frustrating it was for me. It is important for the children of the future. You talk a lot about culture and ASL, and you talk a lot about French and English and the students and young people of the future. Well, we are a community of communities and we are also a legitimate minority within Ontario and we would like to see our rights recognized as well.
We also have some concerns about parents. Often parents who have deaf children -- these are hearing parents now -- panic because they do not know what to do with a deaf child. Usually their first exposure to someone is someone from a hospital who sends them off to a hearing test on some other person and then they recommend, "Oh, well, get this person involved with the hearing community," and that is called mainstreaming.
Therefore, they do not get to see helpful deaf role models on other people from the community, so the culture is missing. What we need to do is develop some kind of a resource so that hearing people, if they have deaf children, can go to that place and get the appropriate information and can contact people from the deaf community. Then I think that will go a long way to alleviating their fears and their panic and it certainly would go a long way in helping that child to grow up to be a full, independent person.
For example, when I was forced to lip-read and go out into the community, I felt so silly. I felt going out was humiliating, to have to go out, and that cashed itself out in bad behaviour. You see this happening with students now. If you have a respect for culture or a respect for language, then I think you see a positive person develop.
I see many people here today. You are who you are because you had the respect for your language and you had the respect for your culture and you were able to grow up in that, but rob a community or people of that and where are you Left? Then you wonder why people do certain things. What we need is your support and your understanding. If a person has a hearing loss or if he is deaf, respect that and go to that. If you look at other communities, whether people are from Asia or Africa, whether people are Jewish on whatever, you need to respect the language and the culture they come from and value that. That is a part of Ontario.
For example, in the south of the province there were rallies to get certain educational changes made in the province. We wanted to hire more deaf administrators and more deaf teachers. We wanted to see some real change in the curriculum, the principles and the hiring process. Of course, some of you may remember that time; this was last spring. We made briefs and we protested and Gary Malkowski was certainly our leader at that and now that Gary won in the last election, he is our MPP.
It just goes to show you that if you get involved you can do it. Never believe in no and never believe in "can't." But what we needed was the opportunity and we needed someone to foster that and to start the fires underneath us, and then once you get going, you are away to the races. So once you see a bit of success, it then inspires other people, and we thank Gary for that.
We have some other concerns with younger people, especially the children, who are in the mainstream schools. Often you have teachers who are in there who do not really know the language. Now the children get to the teens and are there in a school, let's say, for example, in Sudbury. Let's say you have a hearing school and you have maybe a deaf child who is in there and you have people grouped by ages from 12 to 15 and you have a mixture of these people all in the same class. But that is not really age-appropriate if someone is 12 and someone is 15, and it adds more stress for the teachers.
How can they possibly begin to teach age-appropriateness on the appropriate level if they are trying to do four jobs at once in a classroom? What would be nice to see is to have self-contained classrooms with deaf people of comparable age with qualified teachers so you do not have to have one teacher trying to teach four curricula at one time in a class. This is craziness. This is no way to provide education to citizens. This is what goes on. The deaf schools are certainly a place that we value, because that is a place that we see as our culture. That is a safe place where our language can be used and it is almost like family.
2000
I understand the concerns of some parents. They say, "We want our children to be with us because we're family." We understand that, but you also have to understand that your child is also part of a community and it has to be a part of where he can be understood and feel safe.
As well, we have some concerns with some of the mainstream programs and some of the post-secondary institutions. When you grow up and you become an 18-year-old and you have so-called graduated from high school, and they hand you your diploma and congratulations and you are set for life now, there you are with your piece of paper.
Often most of these deaf people who graduate with this piece of paper have not got the literacy skills. We have been misled to a certain extent, and then you are told, "Oh, no, you have to go for upgrading, you have to go and improve your English and your math skills." So we have been sort of misled and we are handed this piece of paper and that again leads to that poor self-esteem. What we need is a better post-secondary education on better upgrading programs for the people who have already come through the system, and we would like to see you do something about that.
As well, employment equity: From my own experience at the school for the deaf in Belleville, if you had applied for a job and you had some experience, for example, if I, say, worked as a counsellor at a school and I went for the interview, and you have five people coming and four are hearing and one person is deaf, you go through the interview process and usually you are kept to the last, as a deaf person. They have interviewed the first two or three people, but the other people do not have the real experience that they are looking for, nor do they have the ASL skills. I have the communication skills and I have some experience, but I will not be considered. That is because of the systemic discrimination that you see.
Often these are hearing people who end up getting the jobs and they end up learning their sign language skills from the students. This is craziness. How can students be teaching their teachers the language? The teachers should be there as someone of a social role model and be a language role model for young people. It should not be the other way around. It should not be young people trying to educate their teachers in the language.
This is the kind of frustrating situation we see happening often, so that what happens in the school is that it becomes like a trial place for these hearing teachers. It is at our expense as a community and as individuals. So employment equity: In terms of hiring processes I think you need to look at that. We need to see real changes and need to give deaf people a real chance. We thank heaven for Gary and for his presence in the Legislature and for all the work he has done and for fighting for employment equity. He is the first person to really give us hope and to give us a chance.
For example, you look at the counsellors and the teachers who do not have the skills, yet there are many qualified people in the deaf community who can do this. So please, we ask you to take a look at Bill 82 and to take a look at the educational system, take a look at your hiring processes, seriously consider employment equity and pass a law that would say that deaf people are a valued minority within the community and that we are full participants in this society. We would like to be equal participants and would like to thank you for that opportunity, if you will give it to us.
MARIE-ANNE LEVAC
The Chair: We will move on to Marie-Anne Levac.
Mlle Levac : D'autres personnes son venues ici ce soir pour présenter les grandes lignes de leurs attentes face à l'Ontario. Moi, ce que j'aimerais faire maintenant c'est de vous présenter un témoignage personnel qui pourrait quelque peu transmettre l'impact qu'auront vos décisions sur l'avenir des jeunes Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes.
Je vais faire ça tout d'abord en vous décrivant quelque peu mon propre vécu personnel. Qui est-ce que je suis ? Je suis originaire de Verner, un petit village francophone tout près d'ici. Mes parents sont Franco-Ontariens, mes grands-parents sont Franco-Ontariens, mes arrière-grands-parents sont Franco-Ontariens et puis ça fait très longtemps qu'on est Franco-Ontariens. Donc, je suis aussi Ontarienne que n'importe qui ici dans la salle ce soir. Je me considère Ontarienne.
Mon vécu : j'ai fait mes études primaire et intermédiaire à Verner, en français, puis après ma huitième année je me suis dit que moi aussi je voulais avoir du succès dans ma vie, que moi aussi je voulais même aller jusqu'à l'université, puis en Ontario aussi. Donc, j'ai décidé d'apprendre l'anglais plus vite. Je suis donc allée à une école bilingue. Là j'avais tous mes cours en anglais sauf trois : le français, la géographie, l'histoire étaient en français et tout le reste était en anglais. J'ai appris l'anglais ; les autres matières, je ne sais pas, mais j'ai appris l'anglais.
Après mon onzième année j'ai déménagé à North Bay. Puis là j'ai continué à appendre l'anglais encore une fois. J'ai eu un cours de géographie avec un enseignant qui a déclaré un jour, en pleine classe, que les Français étaient les gens les moins intelligents. Heureusement que j'avais beaucoup d'amis dans la classe, donc je ne l'ai pas pris trop mal, je m'en suis sortie, j'ai fini ma treizième année.
Après ma treizième année je me suis rendue à l'Université Western où j'ai étudié Canadian literature. J'ai eu d'excellents professeurs. Je me suis fait plein d'amis. J'adorais mes études mais après cela, ironiquement là c'est à travers ma littérature anglaise que je me suis rendu compte de l'importance que pouvait prendre l'identité, que c'était vraiment important de se développer soi-même en s'acceptant comme on est et puis comment on pouvait manquer, comment on pouvait pendre à ne pas être ce qu'on est en jouant le rôle de quelqu'un d'autre. Je me suis rendu compte que j'étais en train d'être quelqu'un que je n'étais pas. J'étais en train de jouer un rôle.
Je ne pouvais pas penser à vivre toute ma vie à 50%. Je voulais avoir mon 100%, donner tout ce que j'avais. Donc, j'ai eu la permission d'un de mes doyens de terminer mon baccalauréat à Montréal. Je voulais retourner à ce qu'on entend par «des sources». Je suis allée à l'Université de Montréal pour un an, j'étudiais en littérature française. Puis là je me suis rendu compte encore une fois que ce n'était pas vraiment chez nous. J'aimais bien ça parce qu'elle est toute française, l'affichage, wow, c'était formidable. Mais les mots «super» puis «c'esi écoeurant» puis tous ces mots-là n'étaient pas vraiment mon vécu, donc je me suis rendu compte qu'encore une fois j'étais en train de perdre puis qu'il fallait vraiment que je retourne à mes racines, que je retourne en Ontario. C'est chez moi.
Et maintenant je me vois face à mon postsecondaire encore une fois ; j'ai fini mon baccalauréat. Je vais poursuivre mes études l'an prochain, je vais aller en droit. Malheureusement il n'existe pas encore d'écoles de droit franco-ontariennes ici en Ontario. Je vais devoir m'expatrier au Nouveau-Brunswick. Ce que je donnerais pour pouvoir verser mes frais de scolarité à l'Ontario, je ne vous le dirai pas. J'aimerais bien rester ici avec ma famille et mes amis puis contribuer à ma société ici, mais je tiens à avoir tout ce je peux pour mon école de droit. Je ne veux pas avoir une éducation à moitié en ayant quelques cours en français, quelques cours en anglais et puis finalement recevoir juste une partie de cette éducation. Je la veux toute. Je veux réussir, c'est tout. C'est tout ce que je demande.
Donc, ça me fait penser aussi que je devrais vous dire que je ne suis pas la seule. La semaine dernière mon cousin m'a annoncé qu'il lâche son programme de musique. Il est un excellent musicien mais les cours à Cambrian sont anglais. Donc, parce qu'il ne comprend pas bien l'anglais, il ne pourra pas devenir musicien. On a besoin de nos institutions postsecondaires de langue française. Je pense que c'est clair.
Mon avenir est encore un point d'interrogation. C'est vous-autres qui allez le déterminer. Je pars pour revenir. Je n'ai pas le choix, c'est chez nous ici. J'ai hâte de voir comment l'Ontario va m'accueillir.
2010
J'ai des recommandations : que l'Ontario n'envoie plus le message aux jeunes de langue française qu'ils sont des citoyens de deuxième classe en les empêchant d'aller plus loin que le secondaire. Bref, que l'on reconnaisse le droit des jeunes Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes de pouvoir poursuivre leurs études en français au niveau postsecondaire en Ontario dans une institution homogène de langue française.
Que l'Ontario, étant une des provinces les plus riches du Canada, assume un rôle de leadership en assumant ses propres responsabilités face à ses propres citoyens, en encourageant la tolérance à l'intérieur de sa propre province et en assurant l'épanouissement de tous les Ontariens.
Que l'Ontario ouvre les yeux sur sa population, reconnaissant que tous contribuent également au développement et au dynamisme de l'Ontario.
Ensuite, que l'Ontario fasse des efforts pour prévenir l'exode des jeunes vers le sud ou vers d'autres provinces et pour minimiser le taux de décrochage.
Que l'Ontario offre des moyens de communication appropriés pour les francophones, favorise l'initiative et l'autonomie des Franco-Ontariens et encourage leur implication sociale, politique et économique.
Finalement, que l'Ontario comprenne que le jour où les jeunes Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes se seront assimilés, ce sera le jour où les Canadiens anglais seront devenus Américains.
M. Beer : Ce qui est intéressant avec nos séances c'est qu'il y a des sections de la journée où on ne sait pas ce qui va arriver. Ce soir nous, les membres du comité, avons appris quelque chose d'extrêmement important. Je pense que vous, Marie, Luc, Didier et Alain, sentez qu'on a peut-être organisé ça comme comité mais vous nous avez appris un fait très important.
Ce fait est que la communauté francophone de notre province est une communauté qui est canadienne et ontarienne. Un des problèmes que nous avons comme Canadiens d'expression anglaise, comme Ontariens anglophones, c'est de bien comprendre que les francophones de notre province ne se définissent pas par rapport au Québec mais par : «Ici on est chez soi».
Pour tout le monde qui a participé au grand gala il y a un an ou un an et demi, même pour tout le monde qui l'a vu à la télévision, au moment où on a tous chanté ensemble la chanson Notre place, où tous les francophones et même des anglophones -- je sais qu'il y avait d'autres gens ici qui étaient là ce soir-là -- alors c'était tout un moment de voir toute la foule en train de chanter et dire «Écoutez, nous sommes chez nous. La province de l'Ontario, c'est notre province. Nous sommes des Canadiens et peu importe ce qui arrive au Québec, on veut certainement bien que le Québec reste a part entière du Canada. Mais nous sommes ici et nous allons continuer comme ce que nous sommes en effet : Franco-Ontariens».
Je dis à vous tous merci beaucoup, pas simplement de notre part, mais aussi de la part de tout le monde qui regarde la télévision. Vous, les jeunes, tous au niveau postsecondaire, même si nous avons fait des progrès durant les dernières dix années, nous comprenons même mieux que des études pourquoi il faut maintenant vraiment assurer au niveau postsecondaire les institutions gérées par les francophones et pour les francophones.
Je pense que vous avez tous parlé du coeur et de l'âme et comme je le disais, vous nous avez appris une leçon très importante.
SUDBURY WOMEN'S CENTRE
The Chair: I call next Cheryl McLellan and Dorothy Zaborszky from the Sudbury Women's Centre.
Ms McLellan: We would like to begin by thanking the committee for providing this opportunity to voice our concerns. We would like to concentrate on an important question that was not raised in the committee's discussion paper, namely, how do we achieve equality for Canadian women?
Throughout Canada's history, women have actively fought to shape society and have struggled for their rights as individuals and citizens. Despite Canada's stated commitment to the values of democracy, very little attention has been paid to the fact that Canadian women are virtually unrepresented in the corridors of power. With few exceptions, the people who make far-reaching decisions which profoundly affect women's lives are men. Women were not persons within the British North America Act and therefore were ineligible to be appointed to the Senate or hold other appointed offices under the act's jurisdiction. It took an appeal in 1929 to the judicial committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain to change this and open the way for Canadian women to serve as federal senators and judges.
The Canadian women's movement has emerged as one of the world's most influential. It has had particular impact in increasing women's participation in politics in Canada, in redefining the public policy agenda and in integrating women's interests in the way governments work.
In the 1960s, a much larger, more critical mass of women began to analyse women's daily lives and to uncover the complex layers of systemic discrimination that relegate women to second-class status. The need for such analysis becomes particularly significant in view of the fact that women constitute 52% of the electorate.
As Jill Vickers has stated:
"The political is not a category fixed for all times in our society; nor does it involve activities located only in formal political institutions which direct their interests to the most powerful levels of the state. None the less, the dominant political culture, with its definition of the political, was established by men and has been made to seem `natural' with the benefit of formal political institutions, laws and practices that are largely self-perpetuating."
Until the 1960s and early 1970s there was little sense among Canadian women that their potential power as citizens and as prospective legislators could be employed to alter their own status and condition. Perhaps the best example of women's awakening sense of their potential influence was their successful lobby in 1981, which resulted in the inclusion of sections 15 and 28(b) in the Constitution.
The political status quo was male-created and male-centred and as a result tended not to reflect adequately the interests of women. For example, the number of women seeking federal office in Canada rose from four in 1921 to 137 in 1974. But the number of women who won seats in those 53 years rose from one to nine. At this rate, women would need another 842 years to achieve equal representation at the federal level. We note with pleasure that the September 1990 provincial elections have somewhat improved the levels of representation.
None the less, and in spite of the fact that Canada and Ontario have ratified the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the daily lives of women have not shown significant improvement. A recent review by the UN commission on the status of women concluded that, despite the efforts made during the last five years, obstacles to women's equality remain. Among the issues that were identified as requiring priority attention are: education related to women's legal rights; sex stereotyping; increasing the number of women in decision-making positions; pay equity; recognition of women's unpaid work; integration of work and family responsibilities; and family violence.
2020
We would like to focus on two issues: women in the public service and pay equity. With regard to the former, according to the report of a task force on barriers to women in the public service released in April 1990, women experience significant barriers to career advancement in the public service of Canada, so much so that they are leaving their jobs faster and more frequently than men. This report concluded that women are frustrated by three major barriers: stereotyped attitudes which limit their development and advancement; a hostile, unaccommodating corporate environment; and problems related to balancing work and family responsibilities.
The task force made four recommendations:
Measures should be taken to improve representation of women in senior management. Women make up 44% of the government's work force, but in the upper echelons this proportion drops to 12%. Clearly this is not an acceptable ratio.
The problem of under-representation of women in the public service should be integrated into the government's management strategy instead of being treated as a separate issue. This means, for example, that the performance of deputy ministers could be judged according to their success in reducing the concentration of women in low-paying clerical jobs and in improving their representation at the top.
Rules and practices which put women an a disadvantage should be phased out. In this area, the task force pointed to the use of outdated or stereotypical job descriptions and the lack of benefits provided in part-time and short-term positions.
A sustained effort should be made to change the corporate culture of the public service. The task force found that 67% of women believe there is a glass ceiling in the public service, an invisible barrier preventing them from reaching top jobs. Only 29% of men perceived such a barrier.
Concerning pay equity the situation is also unsatisfactory. There are several problems with the Pay Equity Act, Bill 154. The most blatant is that at present about one million women are excluded. Other problems include: job definitions, "job class"; "greater public sector," which has too much ambiguity; and "male jab class." Part I, section 1 of the act defines this as a job class in which 70% or more of the members are male. This is particularly problematic because reluctant employers can use it to avoid dealing with pay equity. Because Bill 154 is not equal-value law far everyone, owing to exceptions, it is an exclusive rather than inclusive act. We recommend that the act be amended to include all women without exception.
If Canada is to endure, it must change. To quote Premier Rae, "We need substantial change in the way we in Canada share power, plan for the future, make economic and social decisions as governments and people." This time around, in contrast to 1981 and 1990, women must be present at the bargaining table and not just a token few. We do not need another 1981 repatriation or 1990 Meech Lake situation, both of which, for women, amounted to examples of 11 white males bonding.
A very low priority is given to so-called "women's issues," a term which has come to devalue any issue it encompasses, such as family violence, day care, education, pay equity, guaranteed access to all health care services and many others which have far-reaching effects. They do not affect only women. These are issues that impact on all Canadians. We need to change the mindset that says women's issues can be placed on the back burner and forgotten. These issues must be heard, understood and acted on promptly.
In conclusion, to quote the Feminist Party of Canada: "While it is true that some of the established parties, some of the time, do recognize women's situation and needs, they do so on their terms, in their language and categories, on their time and for their own reasons." We agree with this analysis and would add, again in the words of the Feminist Party: "The political process as it is now practised is not based an human or moral consideration, but on values which, at best, are not conducive to the creative resolution of the problems our country faces. Life, to fulfil its highest potential, depends on integration, on creativity, and politics must be redefined to incorporate these qualities."
Ms Churley: Thank you for coming tonight. You were right when you said there has not been a whole lot of discussion; there was very little tonight, although a few speakers mentioned women's rights, and I am glad you raised the issue. I think you raised a good point.
We must not, as women, when we get elected, all became Maggie Thatchers in order to get to the top. The only way we are going to be able to change the kind of mindset and the culture you are talking about -- because we are a different culture -- and get our values in politics and in leadership positions is to be ourselves.
I think my colleagues will say that I tend to do that, and sometimes perhaps to people's embarrassment, because I am being myself. It actually takes a lot of strength and energy to allow yourself to be yourself, because there is a pull to behave properly, which is in that particular male-dominated image. So I am glad you brought that point out. It is very important, and I think there are more women getting, fortunately, slowly, in positions and not being afraid to be themselves. I think it is helping our male colleagues in fact to be around more women in politics.
You mentioned Meech and the 11 men bonding. In fact, there were more than 11 men bonding. Most of the people in that room, the advisers as well, were men. I just wanted to ask you how you think we can do things differently beyond this kind of forum here in the process that is happening now to make sure that women are taken seriously and their concerns, this time, are taken seriously and are once again not left out of the process.
Ms McLellan: I think we have to ensure that women are included in the bargaining process.
Ms Churley: How do you think we can do that? Do you have some ideas beyond people like me and people in positions of power really pushing for that?
Ms McLellan: I just think we have to make a concerted effort to bring more women forward. In 1981 it took an ad hoc committee -- I mean, they worked really hard and they did really fine work, but they were not invited. It was not, "Come on, sit down and tell us what your concerns are." We need to have an inclusive process rather than excluding everybody, left, night and centre.
Sometimes, yes, that gets very awkward and there are too many people and all the rest. But when you have women making up 52% of the electorate, should they not have 52% of the say? Should not women be able to express their views on all of the issues and not just say "We'll get her to speak about this because it's a women's issue," which is a horrendous way to do things. I do not know exactly what kind of mechanism we can put in place.
Ms Churley: I guess you hit it, that the Constitution and Confederation and those kinds of issues are seen as hard, male issues and that women are not invited into those rooms. That is the kind of concern I have, that it is very hard to get invited in, because I believe there are not too many people who believe that women understand these issues and there are constitutional experts in the women's community, as experienced during Meech Lake.
I am just asking you if you have some idea. Should we try to hold some kind of women's conference night now or pull some women together who do have some views and expertise in the area and make sure that we do not wait to be invited, that there are women who are ready to be involved pretty well immediately?
Ms McLellan: I think that is what we have to do There are a lot of women in Canada who are very bright and very politically savvy and who could give so much benefit to the political process. There are any number of women, and I am sure if an invitation was to be offered by anyone, they would be right there. But we have got to guarantee it.
Ms Churley: Well, you have my guarantee that I will be right there through it all and I think Yvonne will as well, so there are two right here.
Ms McLellan: I think the Ontario government too can set an example. There is nothing wrong with being a trendsetter. There is nothing wrong with Ontario as a province giving women this kind of a voice on a provincial level and saying: "Look how well this works. Look how well represented all of the people in Ontario are and how much our province has benefited from that." Then you can extrapolate that across the country, because you cannot deny that it will benefit and it will be a wonderful example. On a provincial level that is what we can do.
2030
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am very happy that you came before us tonight, because your suggestions have been very explicit. I have been in public office now for 19 years and when I entered, on a school board, there were 14 members: two women and 12 men. I changed school boards and then I left that about four years ago, and at that point this other board, which was in the same community, was 50-50: 10 women and 10 men. I say that because I do think things are changing. I do think women have to put their names on ballots, and in doing that, they have to ask other women to support them. In the beginning I did have mostly women supporting me, but certainly now men knock on doors for me and certainly my husband is one of my strongest supporters.
I think then when you get into a position of some responsibility you have to encourage other women. My executive assistant is a woman; my campaign managers have been women. I took those people because they had the qualities that were necessary. If they had not had them and if a man had presented himself, he would have been there, but women presented themselves to assist me in my endeavours.
I do not feel that I have even been told just to speak to women' s issues, and I go right back 19 years. I have headed up collective bargaining teams and I have been chairman of a school board, so I feel I have been given many opportunities, but I think that I had to do some sacrificing and I think I had to stick my neck out a bit. I think women such as yourself cannot always wait for the invitation you have requested. I think perhaps Ms Churley and certainly myself -- I made my leader aware that I was interested in serving on this committee. If I had riot have, he might not have known. Of course, he might not have decided to appoint me to the committee either, but he did and I hope I will be worthy of the task he has presented me.
I just wanted to say one word about pay equity. I think you used the word "promptly."
Ms McLellan: Yes.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I have struggled with pay equity now for four years in the Legislature. I do not think there is a prompt way to doing this. Pay equity gets very confused with low-paying jobs and they are two separate things. I think that is one of the fundamental things, and it also gets confused with employment equity. I hope you will give those of us who are struggling with this in the Legislature some time. There has been quite a step forward, and certainly an announcement yesterday again. I hope you will continue to bring your message to forums like this, and those of us who are there will be encouraged by your support.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
LE THÉÂTRE DU NOUVEL-ONTARIO
The Chair: We go to Paulette Gagnon and Micheline Tremblay du Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario.
Mlle Gagnon : Au nom du conseil d'administration et de l'équipe du TNO, j'aimerais d'abord vous remercier d'avoir accepté de me recevoir ici ce soir.
J'aimerais débuter ma présentation par une citation. C'est un extrait d'une allocution que Pierre Pelletier, un artiste visuel, a fait en octobre dernier lors de l'assemblée de fondation de l'Alliance culturelle de l'Ontario.
Il disait : «La culture qui nous permettait de dire qu'il y a une meilleure façon de penser, de vivre, de sentir, de se cultiver, n'est plus ! La culture comme lieu d'appartenance, comme référent universel à une hiérarchie de valeurs n'est plus. À qui la faute ? Aux artistes, qui délirent de plus belle et qui finissent par donner l'impression que tout vaut tout ? Aux fonctionnaires, technocrates, scribes de la culture qui, obéissant aux mots d'ordre de l'État, finissent par parler d'un bien culturel comme d'un bien quantifiable, d'un bien consommable, qui vaut d'autres biens comestibles, utiles, comme d'autres biens industriels ?
«À qui la faute ? À une civilisation qui nous aplatit complètement, qui nous réduit au réel le plus immédiat, le plus monnayable».
Au cours des prochaines minutes, je tenterai de vous communiquer notre conviction que la vitalité culturelle d'une société est fondamentale à son mieux-être et que l'identité, l'appartenance à une communauté dépend de ce mieux-être collectif. En d'autres mots, sans culture vivante, point de santé.
En tant que francophone de souche ontarienne, par conséquent d'une identité culturelle étiquetée sur la place publique en tant que minorité francophone hors Québec, je crois sincèrement que l'expérience vécue par les Franco-Ontariens depuis quelques décennies peut nous apporter aujourd'hui une réflexion valable dans les débats actuels.
Le Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario ne pourra se prononcer sur tous les aspects de votre réflexion. Malheureusement, notre expertise se limite au domaine des arts et de la culture. Mais cette expérience est, selon nous, d'une richesse surprenante et, nous l'espérons, permettra de nourrir votre réflexion.
Étant moi-même parent, je déplore souvent l'éclatement de la famille élargie. En effet, je me retrouve souvent seule avec mon conjoint, au sein de ma petite famille nucléaire, à devoir marcher sur des questions fort importantes. Le poids social et économique de mon petit îlot familial est énorme et je dois l'assumer entièrement.
La comparaison est peut-être farfelue, mais il me semble que le Canada est cette famille élargie d'autrefois, au sein de laquelle se développaient les nucleus. Aujourd'hui, les nucléus sont plus nombreux. Il est de plus en plus difficile de visualiser cette grande famille à laquelle nous appartenons tous. Nous ne la ressentons plus, donc elle n'existe plus, semble-t-on dire.
Ne faudrait-il pas plutôt chercher à comprendre pourquoi et comment notre identité se développe ou ne se développe pas ? Où se nourrit-elle et comment en favoriser l'épanouissement ? Voilà les questions auxquelles je tenterai de répondre en puisant dans notre expérience d'institution culturelle et communautaire, jumelée à notre identité de francophone en milieu minoritaire.
Le Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario fut fondé en 1971 par un mouvement qui prenait naissance sur le campus de l'Université Laurentienne et qui sera connu par la suite sous le nom de CANO, la Coopérative artistique du Nouvel-Ontario. Pour poursuivre dans l'imagerie familiale, disons que le TNO est un des bébés de ce mouvement artistique du Nord ontarien parmi plusieurs d'autres tels que Prise de Parole, une maison d'édition, Ciné-Nord, La Slague, La Galerie du Nouvel-Ontario, le groupe de musique CANO et j'en passe.
Vingt ans plus tard, le TNO compte plus de 75 productions théâtrales à son actif, dont 45 sont des créations originales d'artistes franco-ontariens. Plusieurs ont été diffusées aux quatre coins du pays au fil des ans. Le TNO se consacre depuis quatre ans exclusivement à la création de théâtre pour adultes.
Il est un des rares théâtres francophones hors Québec à être propriétaire et si tout va bien, d'ici deux ans il sera le premier théâtre francophone de l'Ontario à posséder sa propre salle de spectacles. Sous le leadership de Jean-Marc Dalpé et de Brigitte Haentjens, respectivement auteur en résidence et directrice artistique de 1982 à 1990, le TNO est maintenant reconnu nationalement et internationalement pour la qualité artistique de son travail.
Parallèlement et en partie parce qu'il est installé dans une région plutôt que dans une métropole, le TNO s'est enraciné dans sa communauté, celle de Sudbury d'abord et surtout, mais aussi celle du nord de l'Ontario. Les liens avec cette communauté sont quotidiens et prennent des formes multiples. Ce que tous ces moments communautaires ont en commun, c'est leur dimension culturelle. Chaque occasion, événement, réception, lancement, atelier, répétition favorise l'expression non censurée, non réprimée d'une appartenance à cette culture qui est la nôtre et qui malheureusement ne se vit pas suffisamment publiquement.
Le TNO répond à ce besoin fondamental de retrouvailles, d'échanges et d'épanouissement culturel.
J'oeuvre au TNO depuis plus de huit ans et j'ai donc été témoin d'une croissance que plusieurs qualifient de remarquable.
En 1981, après une année de crise, le TNO vivait dans l'ordinateur d'un bénévole. Il était sans toit, sans artiste, sans argent. Aujourd'hui, nous gérons un budget annuel d'au-delà de 600 000 $ par année. Nous créons en moyenne d'une vingtaine d'emploi-homme-année, nous rejoignons des milliers de spectateurs et ce, sans jamais jouer le jeu de la commercialisation, au contraire. Et pourtant nous sommes aujourd'hui davantage appuyés par la communauté que jamais auparavant dans notre histoire.
Je crois, et voilà l'essentiel de ma communication, que ce succès tient à une identité qui s'est bâtie au fil des ans en un sentiment d'appartenance, de reconnaissance de soi qui s'est propagé dans la communauté. Il ne m'aurait pas été possible de dire ceci en 1982 et j'espère que vous ne percevrez aucune vantardise dans mes propos car là n'est pas mon but.
Ce qui assurera notre survie à long terme, ce n'est pas l'expertise d'un administrateur, ce n'est pas un conseil d'administration de gens affluents, ce n'est pas l'argent. C'est cette symbiose artistique communautaire à l'intérieur de laquelle chacun a une place, qu'il ou elle soit un enfant, une adolescente, une femme ou un aîné, une artiste professionnelle ou un consommateur culturel, une comédienne de la relève ou un metteur en scène amateur. Cela crée une grande famille dynamique à l'intérieur de laquelle l'institution du TNO se développe parce que la grande famille est prête à investir. C'est comparable dans une certaine mesure au phénomène des institutions bancaires coopératives. Plus on investit, plus ça rapporte et plus ça rapporte, plus on a le goût d'investir.
Si nous regardons maintenant la société canadienne et ontarienne en général, nous pouvons rapidement constater que la majorité des investissements ont été faits dans les domaines des besoins primaires et secondaires : santé, logement, éducation, services sociaux aux démunis et ainsi de suite. L'investissement des gouvernements, et ce à tous les niveaux, dans le secteur des arts et de la culture demeure aléatoire. Le mythe veut que l'art et la culture c'est une affaire qui ne concerne qu'une partie infiniment marginale de la société. Bref, c'est un luxe d'intellectuels.
Évidemment, je ne saurais prétendre ici que la culture va sauver l'humanité entière à elle seule, mais je comprends qu'aujourd'hui, nous ne cherchons pas nécessairement à identifier les solutions aux problèmes environnementaux, ni les solutions aux problèmes de la pauvreté même si ces problèmes nous touchent et nous préoccupent. Nous adressons particulièrement la question de l'identité et de la définition d'un pays, d'une société, d'un mieux-être, comme le dit Pierre Pelletier, un artiste visuel de la région d'Ottawa.
Nous connaissons tous bien des gens qui jouissent de confort économique, de statut social positif, d'une éducation avancée et qui pourtant ne semblent pas heureux ou ne le sont carrément .pas. Et pourtant, d'autres bien moins nantis nous présentent des visages tellement épanouis que nous ne pouvons nous empêcher de nous demander quel est leur secret. Leur secret n'est-il pas un mieux-être, une appartenance à une communauté quelconque, une identité intégrée, vécue de l'intérieur ?
Il m'apparaît essentiel que la culture remonte dans les priorités des gouvernements afin de permettre à une véritable vie culturelle et communautaire de se développer, de s'épanouir. Ne serait-ce pas là un moyen efficace d'aider à notre société à se rebâtir une identité qui lui est propre et par ailleurs vitale ?
Une culture vivante permet aux individus de communiquer, d'échanger, de s'éduquer non pas dans le sens académique mais dans le sens humanitaire. Le problème n'est-il pas à la base un problème d'ignorance, pas dans le sens péjoratif du mot, mais plutôt dans le sens de méconnaissance de ce que nous sommes ?
Les artistes, c'est prouvé, sont des agents de changement dans une société. Leurs dires, peu importe le médium, permettent à une société donnée de s'observer en quelque sorte, de se critiquer, de se motiver à changer.
Tout le monde s'entend ; ça va changer, ça change déjà. Alors, pourquoi ne pas investir d'abord dans ce qui nous permettra, facilitera les changements de mentalité puisque là encore, l'expérience nous démontre que le véritable changement s'opère lorsque les mentalités acceptent le chargement proposé.
Donnons à la vie culturelle et artistique une place, un rôle, une responsabilité sociale importante. Donnons-lui la responsabilité d'être une vitrine pour notre identité canadienne et ontarienne et donnons-lui les moyens de remplir cette responsabilité.
En parlant de la francophonie hors Québec, quelqu'un me disait l'autre jour que le problème est l'absence d'une voix publique. J'applique à ceci un raisonnement parallèle : le Canada doit se doter d'une voix publique qui portera d'un océan à l'autre une identité culturelle propre à son histoire et à son développement. Et cette voix publique ne sera pas stagnante, puisqu'elle sera toujours nourrie à la base par tous ceux et celles qui le bâtissent, ce pays, jour après jour. Au contraire, elle sera créatrice de changements puisqu'elle confrontera constamment chacun de nous au besoin d'évaluer, de s'ouvrir sur le monde, le nôtre en premier bien entendu.
À force de s'ouvrir sur le monde des autres sans avoir une identité propre, solide et vivante, le Canada s'effrite peu à peu. Les francophones hors Québec sont bien placés pour parler de cette réalité qu'est l'assimilation culturelle et la désintégration d'un peuple. Concrètement, cela suppose que les différentes cultures de notre pays et les institutions qui les représentent soient pleinement reconnues. Elles pourront donc être valorisées par notre vitrine canadienne.
Cela demande que la constitution canadienne reconnaisse les trois communautés nationales qui ont bâti le Canada, soit les communautés autochtones, anglophone et francophone et leur accorde l'autogestion de la gamme complète des institutions homogènes nécessaires à leur plein épanouissement. En permettant aux communautés nationales de s'autodéterminer, nous investirons dans le développement d'identités solides qui pourront, au bénéfice de tous, faire affaire ensemble. Nous sommes capables d'appliquer ces principes dans nos relations avec d'autres pays, d'autres cultures, pourquoi pas chez nous, entre nous.
Cette vision peut sembler idéaliste aux yeux de certains. Pour d'autres comme moi, c'est une question de valeurs. Je travaille pour un organisme qui à force de rêve et d'engagement a réussi au cours de la dernière décennie à bâtir du solide, une fondation sur laquelle nous pouvons maintenant espérer ériger un avenir. Et cette réussite, nous les artistes, les gestionnaires et les administrateurs du TNO, nous la devons à cette synergie communautaire qui nous projette avec force vers l'avant et nous oblige à nous dépasser et à réinventer tous les jours une façon de construire un monde meilleur.
Voilà donc ce que je désirais partager avec vous ce soir. Permettez-moi de vous remercier d'avoir reçu le TNO, et acceptez nos voeux de courage et de succès.
Mr Malkowski: I was quite impressed with your talk this evening pertaining to culture and the arts. I think where we have elementary school levels involving in the arts, that has an impact with education, especially when you talk about the French audience members, when you have a bus tour or something, when you have different community groups looking in. Of course they go for leisure. Look at mime; the French are known for that. There is no language, but does that help? From your experience, do you see any positive reactions to that, when people attend arts presented in English and sometimes they do not really display the feelings and spirit of the francophone community?
Ms Gagnon: Am I understanding right, that you are asking how I feel if I see a performance in English and it does not reflect my culture?
Mr Malkowski: That could be. But you talk about your theatre group and people talking and presenting mime. Let's look at mime. Those who are watching are the English audience members. Do they enjoy mime as much as you do? Do they have that open understanding and understanding of the French presentation, and do you get a positive response?
Ms Gagnon: I have to admit I am not very familiar with mime, because that is not the kind of theatre we do. I have anglophone friends who do not really speak French and have been to some of our plays that are totally in French, and they were able to appreciate it and to feel a communication, a bonding with our culture. I do not know how I should say that. They can understand, they can feel, they can react to what is expressed.
Mr Malkowski: So that would encourage other actors to promote more of the arts and culture and then gain respect within your community?
Ms Gagnon: Yes. I think the more the culture is present, vibrant, in our everyday life -- I find the problem now is that people go out once every second month to a movie or play, or a school has a play in its school twice a year. It is not everywhere that the cultural identity is present, is felt by the students in schools, the people in society. Culture is almost something that as a consumer we go out and buy when we feel like it, and I do not think that is what culture is all about. I think culture is something present every day. It has to be there. We have to have more arts and more culture in public spaces, we have to have more arts and culture in the schools, we have to have textbooks in the schools that are going to reflect a cultural identity. Why do we not learn science from a Canadian perspective? Why do we not learn math? Anything we learn should be filled with this cultural identity which is ours, anglophone for anglophone and francophone for francophone.
2050
Mr Martin: I just want to share with you that as I sit through these hearings I sense it is an awesome task, a very big responsibility. If we are going to find an answer, somehow there has to be some magic to it, something that attracts us as people of every cultural origin. Tonight I hear you say some things that were said last night by some people; I sense they were also from a community of artistic types. You speak a language and use words we do not often hear -- one of them is "family" -- and you speak of concepts.
I come from an Irish culture and I have married an Italian who comes from an Italian culture, and when I was in university I interacted with French culture, and all of that excites me and draws me to something much bigger and much more exciting which I think Canada could be. How do we bring the cultures together to share on the level you have shared with us tonight, so that we may all get excited and resonate together and evolve into a country that feels proud of its differences at the same time as it does things as a community?
Ms Gagnon: I think what I am trying to express here is that our own culture is not visible enough. The American culture is very, very present in our everyday lives. I feel that whether we are Italian Canadian or French Canadian or native people we have all this cultural richness here in Canada and we cannot see it. It does not show that we have all this richness in our cultural heritage. I find that if culture and the arts were a more important priority for the governments, if more money, if more resources, if more services, if more visibility or recognition were given to culture and the arts, I think it would naturally evolve to a stronger Canadian identity, and that should help us figure out a lot of our other problems.
What I am saying here is that as long as we do not have this identity, we are consuming Canada, we are not living it. We have to get inside Canada. It has to mean something from the inside, not just: "Well, I'm going to go and collect this. I hope to get this service," and expecting everything to come to me as a consumer. That is a very unnatural way of having a relationship with our country. We see our government as something that is supposed to give us. We have to build up identity again. We see many small things having success. With my theatre company, it is this spirit of belonging that gave us that strength to go further and surmount the obstacles, which were enormous considering our small size.
M. Winninger : Est-ce que vous avez considéré le théâtre comme un moyen de présenter le drame constitutionnel ?
Mme Gagnon : Ça pourrait faire un succès dramatique.
SUDBURY MULTICULTURAL/FOLK ARTS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: I call Sam Enver, from the Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association.
Mr Enver: On behalf of the 35-ethnic-group membership and individuals of the Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association, we welcome you to Sudbury.
We wish to express our solidarity with the principles of democracy, which is the basis of your visit here. We firmly believe in the idea of a Canada held together by a strong federal system. We believe in a united Canada and are proud to belong to a country whose multicultural policy is one of the most progressive in the world. We strongly support the concept of a multicultural mosaic in which the various components can maintain their distinct heritage, cultures and languages within the framework of a Canadian lifestyle.
The present immigration policy is undoubtedly informed by the need to maintain a healthy balance of workforce in the face of a declining Canadian population. The contribution of immigrants to the development of a viable Canadian economy is a well-known fact. Over the years these groups have proven themselves to be highly adaptable in their willingness to acquire new language and other skills, and some have gone on to become very successful in their chosen endeavours. There is no questioning the fact that they will continue to make significant contributions in the future.
One of the dangers of our present system of immigration is the ghettoization of ethnic groups in large urban centres like Toronto. In time this usually leads to ethnic and racial problems, isolation and alienation from the mainstream group. It also defeats the cultural mosaic policy of having groups remain part of the bigger picture.
A better solution would be to spread immigrants more evenly throughout the province and the country. This means making northern cities like Sudbury become more attractive as final destinations for immigrants. It means the decentralization of government and industry to create the jobs and infrastructure necessary to bring about proper development.
Northern Ontario should be made more hospitable by channelling not only independent immigrants and government-sponsored refugees but also people from other parts of Canada. Such people need decent jobs and housing. We need to attract skilled immigrants and business entrepreneurs, and take steps to keep up the population.
A major problem facing the north is the movement of young people away to other parts of the country. The main reason is the lack of jobs, not the weather. With a package of incentives and programs, we can reverse this flow and bring in young immigrants with children as well as keeping our youth. This is the only way to ensure ourselves enough of a working population as a tax base for the future.
A large portion of the immigrants to Canada are not urban-based in their country of origin. It is an additional shock for them to have to learn to live in intimidating urban jungles as well as tackling a new language, climate, culture, education and legal system. We feel many immigrants would find it easier to settle down in smaller, less intimidating communities such as are found in northern Ontario. It would mean for them less of a culture shock, avoidance of urban ghettos, better schools for their children and a greater integration into Canadian life.
The multicultural centre is seeking to do in an organized manner what immigrants of the past did on their own which is to build up the region. Our staff, paid through government funding, help immigrants to settle in Sudbury, find employment, learn English as a second language and find a circle of supportive people from a familiar culture.
Over 35 organizations representing ethnocultural groups are affiliated with the multicultural association. They maintain the heritage cultures, language and religious practices and so offer a mental and physical support for the immigrant. We know the first year is the most important for any immigrant, who requires more than anything else the support of those similar to him. The multicultural/folk arts association seeks to provide the nourishment for such support groups to flourish.
Through our cross-cultural education and other similar programs, we hope to educate the general public about the cultures of the many people who make up this community. We feel it is important to eliminate the myths about immigrants, natives and their contributions.
2100
Sudbury is one of the few communities in Canada where there is an umbrella organization that serves the purpose of all ethnic cultures and provides the opportunity for newcomers to receive support of their own culture and at the same time gain access to the social services. We have many programs in place, such as employment counselling, settlement, cross-cultural education and bridging initiative, which serve to educate the public about the cultures of the many peoples who make up the community and help to ensure understanding and harmony. Our board and staff are hard-working, dedicated and qualified individuals from a wide range of ethnic and professional backgrounds.
Regrettably, most of our funding is program-based and short-term, as well as being considerably lower than that of government employees in comparable positions. The province should consider permanent funding and pay equity for what is really a most important instrument for keeping up the province's working population and creating an atmosphere of racial arid cultural tolerance and harmony.
In Sudbury, other immigrant support services include career preparation for immigrants, Capri for short, which serves to imbue newcomers with job-specific language skills, and organizations such as Women Across Cultures, an organization that seeks to advocate for the rights of the immigrant woman. We enjoin you to use your good offices to bring pressure to bear and ensure their support and growth.
We feel the rights of all minority groups should be respected. This includes native people and francophones as well as groups like the Italians, Ukrainians, Poles and others from Africa, Asia and Latin America. We believe in a Canada where the rights of all groups are respected -- mainstream, native and ethnic -- and all have a common say in the future. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. There is at least one question, maybe two. Mrs O'Neill.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you very much. It certainly is uplifting to read a brief such as yours. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions. You have given us a very good idea of what you do together. Could you say a little bit about what you do in heritage language? Do you have a common professional development for your teachers?
My second question has to do with interpreting in the hospitals and social service agencies. Do you branch out into those areas as well?
Mr Enver: Maybe I should start with your second question first. We have a list of interpreters of more than 140 people, and they are all volunteers. When they are required, whether they are required in hospitals or an appeal hearing for a refugee or anywhere, we get in touch with them and we tell them where they should be, and most of the time they are willing to do it and able to do it.
As for our heritage language programs, we support our member groups individually for the programs they do provide. The centre itself has a volunteer program where we get in touch with the Catholic school board in the city and they provide us with a teacher, they donate her services, and we do provide English as a second language at the centre.
We also have Canadian citizenship classes. After three years, most of the immigrants are proud to became Canadians and they wart to get ready. We do help them with that and we give them necessary information as to how they should go through with that.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I represent one of the ridings in Ottawa, Ottawa-Rideau, and we are setting up our first multicultural resource centre. I hope you will encourage them, and perhaps I should suggest a visit to this community because you do seem to have a very good hold on the best way to serve your constituents. I thank you very much for coming before us tonight. We need to hear about all these kinds of experiences that are positive within our communities.
Mr Enver: Thank you. On that note, Mr Chairman, if I may, we do have one of the biggest resource libraries in our centre. If the community in Ottawa wishes to borrow some books or it wants to come in here and get some information from our centre, we would be glad to provide it free of change.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you very much. I will be taking this message back tomorrow to Ottawa.
Mr Beer: We have had some people come before us who have said specifically that at the root of a lot of the problems in this country are the policies that the governments have followed around bilingualism and multiculturalism. It has always seemed to me that as a country, if we have difficulty accepting two languages, how much more difficult then to accept many cultures, many races, and the kinds of problems then become ever greaten.
I am wondering from your own experience and certainly the history of your centre here -- I mean, Sudbury was one of the first to actually develop a multicultural centre where you brought many people together in terms of supporting all of the different communities -- what changes have you seen and what is your sense of the capacity of Canadians to accept this concept of multiculturalism and multiracialism? I mean that not in the sense of the traditional dinners and foods, all of which are important and pleasant, but in the real sense of how that in fact is helping people who come to our country to maintain the respect for their own culture and yet play a full life within Canadian society. Is that changing? Do you find you are still sort of beating your head against same of these same problems as you perhaps did 10 years ago, or do you think that, even given our problems, we are making progress here and there is a greater acceptance for difference?
Mr Enver: I am looking at the multicultural centre. It has been in existence, you are right, about 25 years, maybe more than 25 years, in the city, and I guess when we were first formed we only had volunteers working in there, and thanks to I guess both levels of government, through their funding we employ today nine persons working at the multicultural centre and they come from different walks of life.
When you deal with minority rights, it is a sensitive situation and you are open to racism, shall we say. Regardless what you do, a very small percentage of the people are racist and you expect to get backlashes in what you are doing trying to promote multiculturalism. But we do tackle it and in the last few years we have taken a proactive position. We have a cross-cultural educator, for example, who prepares packages, goes to different schools with various volunteers with him and they make presentations on Pakistan, for example, or South America. I went to a few schools myself personally and I talked about my culture as a Turkish background.
Some people, for example, look at the Middle East and they say they are all Arabs or they are all Iraqis or they are all Iranians. We try to better educate people that it is not so. In the Middle East you have various cultures and many nationalities, so you cannot really put them in one basket. So in those areas we are improving, and Sudbury, a small community, is giving us a lot of access to the local media and we are promoting in those areas and we are blessed with that.
In recent developments, for example in the Gulf crisis, we were able to attend two television programs and make presentations. Our cross-cultural educator prepared a specific package on the Gulf crisis and we are going to schools and talking about them, so we are improving. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go, I guess.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. We will end with that.
DANIEL BROUILLETTE
The Chair: I call Daniel Brouillette. Could I just check while Mr Brouillette is coming forward, that is the last speaker we have on the list. We just want to be sure there are not any other people who had expected to speak. If there are, could they make themselves known to the clerk, please. I think that is, as far as we know, the end of our list.
Mr Brouillette: Good evening. I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on the current position of Ontario as it relates to the rest of Canada. I sincerely hope my comments will be more than just heard, but also listened to as well. It has been a long right. I am extremely sceptical that the government will actually act on my advice, or on other people's advice, for that matter. My comments for the most part follow the general outline of the discussion paper.
2110
To be truthful, I believe Canada is currently going through difficulties within because there are few diversions with which we the people can occupy ourselves. Initially, colonists were concerned merely with survival, then with a form of government. There was a railway to build and trouble with our native people, not to mention dealing with our large southern neighbour. All the while there was money to be made through the exploitation of the land on which we lived. The wars then came, and after the second one was over, new technology arrived and world peace seemed possible.
However, people are curious. In their continuous search to find problems to solve, they have dug up some real old bones. Since survival is no longer a major concern, we are now dealing with many questions regarding socialization and self-actualization. As diverse as Canada's culture is, so as well are our ideas of what the country represents and what it should be.
While many English Canadians share similar viewpoints, Quebec itself continuously feels threatened by change sculptured by the English majority. It is therefore hoping that through sovereignty it will be able to return to the past, when France itself was a world power. This belief is somewhat questionable.
The most common value we share as Canadians is our universal desire for financial stability and success. In order to ensure that this is realized, certain steps must be taken and certain principles adhered to. Strong economies are not based on waste, laziness or ineptitude. Eastern countries value work and take great pride and personal satisfaction in what they do, rather than simply the money they earn. This is one reason for their enormous success and increasing ability to compete in a world market.
Canadians have been following the lead of governments for years and have assembled many of their values from what they have observed. When they see corruption, pork-barrelling and waste, they are inclined to question the value of honest work and instead concentrate on rewards. It is self-defeating. It lowers standards and productivity in the workplace and makes it more difficult for Canada to compete.
Although we share a common desire to improve our standard of living, some provinces enjoy a much better economy than others. Ontario's wealth is shared with the less affluent provinces like Newfoundland and Quebec. This is questionable, because while Newfoundland uses these subsidies simply to survive and fully acknowledges its need, Quebec takes subsidies as well but then ridicules other provinces for being poor. When Bourassa mentioned this during the Meech Lake debate, when he started picking on Newfoundland for being ignorant and said it should not have an opinion because it was getting free moneys, it really upset me and I think it upset a lot of Canadians. I think Bourassa owes an apology to the maritime provinces.
We need a more competent government which spends wisely and reduces waste, not one which provides or promotes French within the Inuit communities in the northern regions.
We now come to the question of roles of the provincial and federal governments and what they should do for our country. If we wish to retain our identity as a country, the federal government must maintain some control over such areas as health care and education in order that some universal standards are shared throughout and to ensure that Canadians are all treated equally.
If the provincial governments adopt their own policies regarding programs, they will not always coincide to our bill of rights. Quebec is another example. Their desire for group rights sometimes oversteps their ideas of individual human rights. It is not only Quebec that is like this. Other provinces might have reasons not to adhere to common principles which Canada should have. We cannot allow Canada's diversity to make a mockery of our basic principles.
We cannot discuss the values and concerns of Canada without giving some consideration to native peoples and the part they play in this country. They have long been ignored and we can no longer afford to turn a deaf ear to their voice. They must be given a forum in order to express their concerns and they must be given a more important role in the country's future.
We should approach native leaders with more respect and interest and less fear and preconceived notions. They should be invited to participate more in Canadian policy and their ideas concerning self-government should be examined thoroughly. If there are problems integrating their ideas with our own, I am sure they can be worked out. We should rely or their ability to understand their own concerns and let them show us how they would like to proceed. We have became so engrossed with the English and French language issue that other important matters such as native concerns have been ignored. We must give these concerns more attention or the domestic problems will certainly increase.
Now to the French-English issue. When people are worried or threatened, they react. The people of Quebec are afraid that the French language will die, so they are bending and breaking some Canadian rules to increase the odds of its survival. They are considering separation as a means of preserving their culture, and while it is a rash move, if they want to do it, they should be entitled to it.
Seeing this historical division, politicians across Canada have attempted to appease Quebec in various ways. Federally, Trudeau established bills which made Canada officially bilingual, while in Ontario David Peterson came up with the brainchild of Bill 8. These were merely small diversions which kept Quebec interested. Quebec never wanted the rest of Canada to speak French, but since the governments were offering, there was no point in refusing.
These politicians did not solve the French concerns, but they created a number of problems for English-speaking Canadians. English people feel that they are now being discriminated against and that, when they speak out, they are labelled as racist. People are genuinely concerned. They see almost all government jobs going to French-speaking people; everything from librarians to groundskeepers. The English language has long acted as a bridge for many diverse languages in our country, enabling people to learn one language and communicate effectively with others.
Now all people from various cultures must learn not one but two if they wish to fully integrate. This puts an unreasonable burden on these minorities and makes it extremely difficult for them to preserve their own language.
Bill 8 and official bilingualism may please the French outside Quebec but it pleases none of the other minorities and does nothing for English Canada. It also does nothing to lighten the burden of the French living outside of Quebec, since they still most likely have to learn English. Since it only burdens, I must question, what good is it? We cannot lessen the tension between English and French by throwing money at it or by adding burdens to the English-speaking citizens.
The English, long ago, granted the French the right to speak their own language and to promote their culture within the boundaries of our Constitution. The French in Canada fear the eventual loss of their language, but this on occasion is the way of evolution in the world. I believe English Canada has taken a very sincere interest and has done all it reasonably can do.
Concerning the provinces, there has been much criticism of the Constitution, and some of this has been coming from western Canada. I do not believe the problems of western Canada are due to our Constitution, but I believe many are due to the poor administration by our federal government. Rather than renew our Constitution, we might take a closer look at how the federal government interprets its duties and tries to implement its policies, for example, if northern communities are being forced to accept bilingualism although they have no apparent need or desire for it.
Our present federal government uses its influence to promote what individual prime ministers want to promote. If they happen to be from Quebec, they promote Quebec interests throughout the country. Other provinces, such as in western Canada, often blame the Constitution or Ontario when the federal government itself is at fault. There is nothing in our Constitution that prevents the federal government from realistically appraising the needs of all other provinces fairly, but the politicians themselves may err.
It seems to me that Senate reform is necessary within Canada. The smaller, less financially secure provinces should have more of a direct say in federal matters than they currently do. They must be able to contribute so that they too can prosper like other provinces have already. The bigger provinces do not have the right to dictate to smaller provinces their behaviour. While the House of Commons should not be changed, the Senate should.
I feel Ontarians and Canadians want to be treated equally and they want the opportunity to compete for jobs and to work in a fair society. I think both the English and French would like to take off the gloves and reach some understandings. Personally, I encourage this because the English have been defeating their own purpose for years and this has got to end.
There is no reason for all Canadians to have identical beliefs or values. What is important is that some basics are established which are followed by all. For the past little while English Canadians have been questioning who they are and have tried to search out their identity and culture. For me, this is very foolish but understandable, since many politicians arid prominent people have encouraged this introspectiveness and have given us a pretty poor self-image.
2120
We are repeatedly told that our nation is sick and that we have no culture and that ignorance and racism abound. We are told that without Quebec we will become nothing more than a state of the USA. The only thing we seem to possess of value is the money we can pay in taxes, and we pay a lot.
It is little wonder then that Canadians often now measure their worth on an economic scale rather than by their true merit or performance. When the question of Quebec's sovereignty comes to its final conclusion, and if we are faced with actual separation, I hope English Canada can find good, strong representation. When Quebec claims one fourth of Canada's resources, I hope its claim will be met with the reminder that in reality it has long been the receiver of subsidies and favours rather than the giver of them.
They have riot financially contributed a quarter share to the country and should rat therefore be credited with it. Borders as well will come under close scrutiny and possible disputes, and I hope we do not nun true to farm and simply give Quebec what it wants. Yes, there will be loss and pain for English Canada if Quebec separates. But they can nest assured that the loss and pain will not be unique to English Canada but will be shared by Quebec as well.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brouillette. There is one question, maybe two if we can move them quickly. Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: This is a personal opinion, but I have always seen one of the strengths in this country as being able to agree to disagree at times and build from that. We are able to came to some kind of consensus in regard to what direction our country should take on various issues. I would like to address the one in regard to when you talked about the Senate. You were saying we need to have reform in the Senate. I think you are right to a certain extent and I think my view is fairly well known; it is basically what the party view is.
The thing I ask you is this: If we were to try to move in this country to the position of having a triple E Senate and having an elected Senate by which you would have a federal election elect to our House of Commons a particular party -- let's say the Liberal Party of Canada -- and two years later you were to elect a Senate and it would be in opposition -- let's say either a New Democratic Party Senate or a Conservative Senate -- do you not see that as in some ways being no better than the system we have now and in same ways hamstringing the process of the House of Commons?
The scenario could possibly be set up, and I think it is fairly likely, that the House of Commons itself might have some difficulty in trying to pass some of its legislation through. You would almost have to have the Senate and the House of Commons elect the same party in order to pass through some of the ideas that need to be put through.
Mr Brouillette: I see what you are saying. Party lines in the Senate should not be as well defined. People should be able to vote in the Senate on their own conscience, and in the House of Commons as well. But I do not think that my saying that is going to change it. The fact is that provinces like Newfoundland and New Brunswick and out west do not have enough say. It is Quebec and Ontario.
I am from Ontario and all of my relatives are from Ontario, but I see it as being unfair. In the last debate over Hibernia, Quebec said: "We're not getting enough out of this. We might not let it pass." That is unfair. It should go through. There is no way that one province like Ontario or Quebec --
Mr Bisson: What I am asking --
The Chair: Let's just get the question answered and then we will move on. Go ahead, Mr Brouillette.
Mr Brouillette: Okay, I will redirect it. There might be conflict, but if party lines are not followed, I cannot see it as being as much conflict as there is now. If a person is Conservative but is voting according to what the region wants, according to what the people want instead of what the Prime Minister wants or what the party line is, I think you will have more clear objectives realized. You will be able to do what your people want more.
Mr Beer: I found your presentation very interesting. I must say I was saddened by what I saw as such a despairing sort of sense of the country and a feeling that really there is not much there that can be saved. I guess in particular, and it may just be a conflict in visions, but it seems to me there has been something very noble about the debate over the last 25 years of how we try to bring together English- and French-speaking Canadians, how we try to deal with the issues around a country of diverse cultures and diverse races.
I think frankly just some facts are wrong in terms of the things you seem to be suggesting around Bill 8 and some of the federal government's bilingualism policies. As you look at Canada, do you not see that if somehow this experience in the top of the North American continent is going to work today and 10 years from now, we have to have some basic fundamental respect for both the English and French languages? The francophone community here in Ontario is not a Quebec community; it is an Ontario community, as Ontario as you are or as I am. Can there not be a noble vision that somehow something like Bill 8, which simply ensures that certain basic services are provided and of the 90,000 on 95,000 Ontario civil servants perhaps 5% or 6% will have to be in positions that would require bilingualism, is laudable and supportable?
Mr Brouillette: As you know, my name is Daniel Brouillette. My father is totally French, but I do not speak French. I guess my parents did not see any reason for me to learn to speak French because English is the dominant language. But now I am graduating out of school and a lot of the government jobs are French. The jobs that come available go to French-speaking people, so I might as well forget about the civil service, more or less.
Along those lines, a couple of years ago there was an ad in the Sudbury Star for a job at Laurentian Hospital for a groundskeeper. It said "Knowledge of horticulture and bilingualism necessary." I do not understand that. You do not have to talk to the grass or to the trees. There is no purpose in that. That is what gets people angry, when they start seeing those jobs --
Mr Beer: But that is the administration of the program. That is management. That is not the principle behind it, which is surely to try to find some way of respecting what we want to do for our two linguistic communities, whether we are talking about somewhere in the province of Quebec or Ontario or New Brunswick.
Mr Brouillette: I do not know.
Mr Beer: Is that not the way we need to look at it and deal with those individual problems?
Mr Brouillette: Respect is one thing, but if you start losing, if somebody actually starts taking money out of your pocket, you are going to be looking around for why it is going, and the simple fact of the matter is personally I feel threatened by the fact that I cannot get the same jobs. The French people in northern Ontario, most of them -- well, I do not know any of them who cannot speak English reasonably. They are the ones who get the jobs, and I am left to go either to Toronto -- they are talking about the young people leaving northern Ontario. I know a lot of people who are graduating out of my program who are going to Toronto, who are going further down south, who are going into the United States or out west.
There are no jobs up here for English-speaking people, just solely English-speaking. No one is saying what is fair. Personally I do not think it is fair. Most French-speaking people can speak English so they can get jobs that I can get, but I cannot get the jobs they can get and I do not see that as being fair. I am a commerce student and I understand the way the economy works. Enough French people would be hired through natural hiring processes so that they would be represented within the workforce. I do not know anything about prejudice and stuff like that in the workforce. I do not know how they treat you when you go in for an interview, if they treat you differently when you are English or French. But that is not a real problem that we can solve here, I do not think. That is a bigger issue.
The Chair: Whether we agree or not or whether you are right or not on that, Mr Brouillette, it obviously is a concern that I think needs to be addressed in some way, whether it is the reality or the perception of that concern. Thanks for your views.
That concludes the hearings for this evening and also concludes our hearings here in Sudbury. We have had a long but very useful day of presentations which have touched on a number of issues. We thank all of you who came here this evening and those who came here during the earlier part of the sessions today.
Our hearings continue tomorrow in North Bay and on Thursday from Orillia and Collingwood. I invite any of you who are interested in following our proceedings to do so through the parliamentary network. Thank you very much. We are adjourned until tomorrow.
The committee adjourned at 2129.