ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO -- NIPISSING
LOW INCOME PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT OF NIPISSING
FÉDERATION DES FEMMES CANADIENNES-FRANÇAISES
DÉPARTEMENT D'HISTOIRE DE L'ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE ALGONQUINL'UNITÉ NIPISSING SECONDAIRE DE L'ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
NORTH BAY INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE
NATIVE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE OF NORTH BAY
WOMEN'S ACTION COMMITTEE OF NIPISSING
CONTENTS
Wednesday 13 February 1991
Marcel Noël
Association Canadienne-française de l'Ontario--Nipissing
André Lacoste
Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing
Anita Corriveau
Victor Boldt
Afternoon sitting
Fédération des femmes canadiennes-françaises, Département d'histoire de l'école secondaire Algonquin
Jean-Louis Bourdeau
David Cyr
L'unité Nipissing secondaire de l'association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens
Bernard M. Watson
Ron Lamb
C.J. Toye
Arthur Davis
North Bay Indian Friendship Centre
Dawson Pratt
Stanley Cerisano
Evening sitting
Ronald Bowes
Native Citizens' Committee of North Bay
Raymond Desrosiers
David Bell
John Lutes
Women's Action Committee of Nipissing
North Bay Peace Alliance, Northwatch
Tom Pendergast
Tom Harrington
David Schwartzman
Norman Guertin
Lloyd Henning
T. J. Gagnon
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: Harris, Michael D. (Nipissing PC)
Clerk: Manikel, Tannis
Clerk pro tem: Brown, Harold
Staff:
Kaye, Philip, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
Drummond, Alison, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
The committee met at 1040 in the Royal Canadian Legion, North Bay.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Thank you very much. We want to, first of all, welcome the people who are here with us this morning. We are of course the select committee on Ontario in Confederation and we are here in North Bay today at the Royal Canadian Legion, where we will be spending some time this morning, this afternoon and into the early evening hearing from people in this community, their views on the role of Ontario in Confederation and issues about our future as a country.
This is, I guess, day 3 of week 2, so I guess it is about the seventh day on the road for us travelling throughout the province. It has been fascinating, I think, for all of us as members of the committee and I think quite useful in hearing the perspectives of people and organizations across the province, and no doubt the presentations today will add a great deal to what we have already learned.
I want to introduce, first of all, the members of the committee who are here. This is a legislative committee that is made up of people from the three different political parties represented at Queen's Park. From the New Democratic Party caucus, in addition to myself, we have Gary Malkowski, Marilyn Churley, Gilles Bisson, who is also the Vice-Chair of the committee, David Winninger and Tony Martin. From the Liberal caucus we have Charles Beer, Yvonne O'Neill and Steven Offer. from the Conservative caucus we have Ernie Eves, who will no doubt join us momentarily, and Charles Harnick. Also joining us today is the local MPP from the riding of Nipissing and the leader of the Conservative Party, Mike Harris.
We would like to say, first of all, that we will try today, as we have on other occasions, to hear obviously the people who have indicated already to us that they want to speak to us. We also will try to add as many other people as we possibly can. So if there are other people here in the audience who are interested in speaking to us and whose names we do not have, if you would at some point during the morning let the clerk of the committee, Tannis Manikel, know, or some of our people who will be walking around the room know, then we will do our best to accommodate your wish to speak to us
With that in mind, if we could ask people to try to keep their presentation to within the 10-to-12-minute mark if they are individuals or the 20-to-25-minute mark if you are presenting on behalf of an organization, that will allow us also a little bit of flexibility both to have some questions asked from the members of the committee as well as to hear from as many people as we possibly can.
MARCEL NOËL
The Chair: With that, I would invite the first speaker, Marcel Noël, to come forward.
Mr Noël: Okay. I think I will sit down here and make it informal a little bit or try to get off informally.
The Chair: Please, yes, do.
M. Noël: Je voudrais commencer en vous remerciant de nous donner l'occasion de vous adresser la parole, messieurs, mesdames, et je voudrais vous féliciter de l'initiative que vous prenez en essayant de découvrir les besoins des Canadiens et des Ontariens en ce moment.
Je voudrais me présenter. Je suis Marcel Noël. Je suis le président de la Chambre de Commerce de Sturgeon Falls et District. Je suis aussi le trésorier du Collectif pour le collage du Nord. Je suis un commerçant à Sturgeon Falls et je suis aussi un ancien fonctionnaire du gouvernement fédéral où j'ai passé douze ans.
Ce matin il y aura deux sujets que je voudrais aborder. Le premier est le leadership de l'Ontario et le deuxième, l'importance de l'éducation.
En ce qui a trait au leadership de l'Ontario, le dénouement de l'entente du Lac Meech a précipité une crise nationale qui va mener à un Canada bien différent de celui que nous connaissons et que nous avions connu.
La position dans laquelle nous nous trouvons, du point de vue linguistique aujourd'hui, découle des événements survenus des pourparlers constitutionnels des cinq à six derniers ans. Il va sans dire que ces discussions ont été désastreuses jusqu'ici et nous amènent au point de décision d'aujourd'hui. Nous voyons à travers le pays des tensions linguistiques épeurantes. Les déclarations municipales d'unilinguisme n'en sont que des symptômes. Je crois que l'une des causes de ces malheurs repose sur les épaules des politiciens, et principalement des politiciens fédéraux.
Le bilinguisme et Esprit national canadien se développèrent pendant les années 70, fore de M. Trudeau. Il y avait un leadership au pays qui cherchait une égalité et une balance linguistique et encourageait une centralisation du pouvoir fédéral. Nous avons vu pendant cette période une augmentation de services aux francophones au niveau fédéral -- voir les proportions de fonctionnaires cadres supérieurs français et anglais et la Loi sur les langues officielles -- et au niveau des provinces: le bilinguisme official en 1982 au Nouveau-Brunswick et des services accrue en français en Ontario.
Depuis le changement du gouvernement fédéral , il semble y avoir un vice dans la promotion de la vue d'ensemble du Canada. Les poussées fédérales du côté du bilinguisme sont mains visibles et les oeuvres des gouvernements visent plutôt à accentuer les deux solitudes que de pousser pour un Canada où nos deux cultures peuvent s'épanouir.
Je reconnais que toute la question constitutionnelle est complexe, et que cette question ne se réglera pas sans des discussions très ardues. Mais il reste que les négociations continuent et la bataille n'est pas finie. L'Ontario peut et doit prendre le leadership dans les prochains débats. Les démarches entreprises à date pour les services aux francophones sont louables, mais l'Ontario, avec la plus grande population de francophones hors Québec, doit démontrer le sang-froid et le leadership d'un gouvernement qui promouvoit l'égalité entre les deux groupes linguistiques fondateurs de notre pays.
Le pas à prendre pour le bilinguisme officiel demande énormément de courage, mais il pourrait signaler un nouveau départ pour tous les débats constitutionnels.
Je voudrais ici faire un commentaire relié à ce que j'ai entendu hier soir à une séance à Sudbury. Là, il y avait une personne qui se plaignait du manque d'accès pour les anglophones aux postes gouvernementaux. Le besoin de fonctionnaires bilingues ne disparaîtra pas avec la séparation du Québec, si cette horrible option venait à s'exercer, et on espère que non, jamais. Pour des raisons économiques, les gouvernements et les compagnies privées vont toujours avoir besoin d'employés pour transiger avec le Québec et pour desservir une population francophone locale.
La disparition du Québec ne veut pas dire que toutes les positions bilingues vont être éliminées. La majorité des cadres francophones sont aussi des personnel très éduquées et compétentes qui accomplissent des tâches essentielles et sont souvent dans un poste malgré leur avantage d'être bilingue. Je voulais, peut-être, juste dans ce côté, démontrer que s'il y avait une compagnie américaine placée à San José en Californie qui faisait face à deux candidats pour un poste et tout était égal pour les deux candidate sauf que l'un était bilingue espagnol, la compagnie aurait un avantage si elle engageait la personne espagnole pour des raisons économiques. Alors, ces raisons économiques ne disparaîtront pas. Ceci m'amène vraiment à ma deuxième question, le sujet de l'éducation.
L'éducation est à la base de l'essor économique d'une nation. La révolution tranquille au Québec aux années 60 fut le résultat d'un changement dramatique chez les Canadiens français, de l'éducation classique vers des cours commerciaux et techniques.
Dans le nord de l'Ontario, le niveau d'éducation chez les francophones est toujours très inférieur à la moyenne de celui des anglophones. Le décrochage chez les francophones résulte en grande partie du manque d'institutions postsecondaires de langue française desservant la population francophone dans le Nord. Ceci est démontré clairement dans l'étude ACORD et dans le rapport de la commission Bourdeau.
Les inscriptions actuelles au premier collège francophone en Ontario, la Cité collégiale, à Ottawa, font preuve que la demande pour une telle institution est réelle. Le nord de l'Ontario, avec sa forte proportion de francophones, a besoin d'un collège français multicampus pour repêcher les jeunes adultes qui ont décroché et pour former nos étudiants postsecondaires dans le Nord pour qu'ils y restent et qu'on ne les perde pas aux grandes villes du Sud.
De tels collèges ou campus dans nos villes du Nord assurent leur survie économique et culturelle, ceci en créant des centres d'excellence dans plusieurs domaines et aussi en devenant le point focal de vie culturelle communautaire.
Une institution éducationnelle postsecondaire encouragerait les gens qui ne s'inscrivent pas présentement à des cours, à poursuivre leur éducation, afin qu'ils deviennent des contribuables à la société ontarienne plutôt que des récipiendaires.
En conclusion, le message principal que je voudrais transmettre: j'espère et je prie que le gouvernement de M. Rae prenne le leadership nécessaire pour assurer la survie du Canada, et un Canada où les anglophones Québécois et les francophones hors Québec peuvent jouir d'une égalité avec tous les Canadiens. En même temps, comme vous l'avez bien vu, j'ai voulu faire un petit « plug » pour le collège du Nord.
1050
M. le Président: Merci, Monsieur Noël. Il y a des questions. Monsieur Bisson.
M. Bisson: J'ai vraiment deux questions ayant affaire avec la première partie de la présentation que vous avez faite puis la dernière.
La première partie: vous avez fait le commentaire qu'il y a un manque de leadership au fédéral vis-à-vis de la capacité de gérer la situation constitutionnelle. Je ne sais pas si j'ai bien compris, mais je pense que ce que vous avez dit est que l'Ontario, vu le manque de leadership, doit assumer cette position pour assurer la présence d'une voix rationnelle vis-à-vis de la constitution. N'est-ce pas une situation où possiblement -- puis je ne sais pas quelle est mon opinion, d'une manière ou d'une autre, mais je pose la question -- si l'Ontario essaie de trop parler pour la nation, qu'il est dans notre intérêt de répondre pour l'Ontario ?
La deuxième a affaire avec la question du collège, mais on va aborder la première, parce que ça va détraquer la question.
M. Noël: Okay. Ma perception est que la vue présentée par le présent gouvernement vise plutôt une délégation de pouvoirs et vise une répartition en onze sections de responsabilités, ce qui, nécessairement, va mener à des batailles de clocher, si vous voulez, une mentalité de clocher ; chacun va pour sa part. Le pays devient presque ingouvernable avec onze gouvernements.
Ce que je prévois, ce que je voudrais pour l'Ontario est que l'Ontario prenne un leadership du côté national, bien sûr en protégeant ses intérêts, mais en protégeant ses intérêts dans une enveloppe canadienne et non dans une enveloppe québécoise, une enveloppe ontarienne, manitobaine ou quoi que ce soit. C'est cette vue d'ensemble qui manque. Il faut tous nous rappeler qu'on est Canadien en premier, et je pense que c'est ça qu'il faut repenser. Je me réfère toujours à l'époque de M. Trudeau avec son «un Canada» et c'est cette perception-là qui semble être perdue. C'est certain qu'il faut évaluer tout change, mais dans cette évolution je pense qu'il ne faudrait pas perdre la vue d'ensemble et la vue d'un Canada. C'est ça qui est important.
M. le Président: Je vais passer à d'autres questions. Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. My question really follows on the previous line of questioning in talking about leadership and the role of Ontario. I am wondering if you might share with us your view of leadership in this matter in this respect. I would like to receive your perspective as to the leadership that Ontario should place -- should be in the area of actions taken within the province of Ontario as a role for other provinces, as an example for other provinces, in enhancing French-language services in, for instance, a francophone university, as opposed to the role of Ontario vis-à-vis other provinces as a conciliator or a negotiator.
Mr Noël: I think both of those roles should be assumed by Ontario where there is that vacuum or that perceived vacuum. I think it is important not only in the area of bilingualism but in the area of native rights as well. I think those are important too.
I think the role of Ontario in promoting equality and fairness, leading through the example, and the second part of what you are saying, as a negotiator-conciliator is an extremely important role. I think part of the role of the commission, what the commission is doing here, should be broadcast to the other provinces. I know Quebec is doing it, but the other provinces might take a lead from this as well. So I think both of those are extremely important: lead by example and lead by undertaking the conciliation role.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
Mr Harnick: You talked about the idea of official bilingualism. You made no mention in your presentation about Bill 8. What I would like to know is, from your point of view, is Bill 8 working, can Bill 8 be improved and is there something that the government should be doing to make the provisions of Bill 8 more understandable to people generally?
Mr Noël: I am not up to 100% on Bill 8. Maybe some of the people following me will be more up to date. Bill 8 is a step in the right direction. It is a big step in the right direction. Bill 8 is going a long way towards the equality that I am speaking of, in seeking that equality.
There has been a reticence on the part of a lot of French Canadians in seeking French services and coming forward because we are always being a minority and Bill 8 will help these people. It is going to help these people stand up, get educated and become, as I said in my document, real contributors to the Ontario society. I think it is going a long way and it is helping.
Official bilingualism, once Bill 8 is fully established and is working well, can follow. It would be the next logical step and I think if things go well with the implementation, with the educational institutions and with other developments, we could proceed in that direction.
The other thing is that through Bill 8, the gradual approach might help to calm some fears that people might have about what official bilingualism really might mean to Ontario. There is always the fear of the unknown, so giving a predecessor like that might help calm some of those fears.
Mr Harnick: Can I take it from what you say then that before Ontario, if it ever does, takes the step towards full bilingualism, we should experiment for a while longer under Bill 8 and build towards the day that official bilingualism may be acceptable, as opposed to having a position of official bilingualism right now? That is the tenor of, I think, what you are saying.
Mr Noël: It depends on the time frame that you might be thinking of. There is always the danger that it could be put off and sloughed off and sloughed off.
If we put everything in the context of the constitutional debate that we are looking at, and that type of thing, we might see within a year or a year and a half or so the timing might be better to implement official bilingualism at that time as a signal to the rest of the country, in keeping with what I was presenting there. The timing has to be examined, but you would not want to put it off too long if you want to set the example.
Mr Harnick: Thank you.
1100
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO -- NIPISSING
The Chair: I invite next Richard Marleau and Robert Renaud de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario -- Nipissing.
M. Marleau: Bonjour, nos amis les députés de l'Ontario, et aussi bienvenue à la Semaine française dans le Nipissing. C'est pour cela que je porte le bouton.
En tant que représentant des francophones de la région de Nipissing, l'ACFO-Nipissing est heureuse d'adresser votre comité spécial sur le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération.
Nous sommes un peu ennuyés par le manque de temps donné à la population, et spécialement celle du nord de l'Ontario, à se préparer convenablement pour votre visite. L'ACFO-Nipissing n'a pas eu le privilège de revoir le document de consultation, Changement et renouveau, sur lequel nous aurions aimé offrir une réaction.
Néanmoins, l'ACFO-Nipissing espère que sa réflexion plutôt spontanée et proactive aidera le comité à compléter son mandat.
L'ACFO-Nipissing représente les trois principaux centres urbains, soit North Bay, Sturgeon Falls et Mattawa, ainsi que les petites communautés environnantes qui sont plutôt françaises. Vous pourrez voir dans le tableau à la page suivante de notre document la répartition des groupes de francophones dans notre région. En d'autres mots, nous représentons en moyenne 30% de la population, une minorité, entre guillemets, sensiblement importante.
M. Renaud: Le Canada fait présentement face à une étape délicate et déterminante dans son avenir. Les citoyennes et citoyens ne veulent plus s'en remettre seulement aux chefs politiques pour régler la question. Ils veulent s'en mêler eux-mêmes et elles-mêmes et le font avec enthousiasme au Québec du moins.
Ayant découvert une identité nationale qui leur est propre depuis leur révolution tranquille, les Québécois se sentent capables de prendre leur destinée en main. Ils disent carrément à leurs chefs politiques ce qu'ils attendent d'eux en matière de droits constitutionnels.
De plus, les peuples autochtones, toujours ignorés et pas pris au sérieux, maintenant veulent aussi cette justice et ce respect. Ces peuples qui habitaient ce territoire avant nous le méritent bien.
Pour garder un Canada uni, il faudra des changements majeurs d'attitudes les uns envers les autres. Il faudra se débarrasser de nos préjugés et de notre soif de dominer les autres communautés. Il faudra maintenant penser en termes de partenaires égaux et non en termes de groupes majoritaires et de groupes minoritaires, tels qu'utilisés présentement.
Le concept d'égalité doit primer dans toutes les régions du Canada et non seulement si le nombre le justifie. Alors, la constitution doit reconnaître les trois communautés nationales qui ont bâti le Canada, soit les autochtones, les francophones et les anglophones. La constitution doit également reconnaître l'apport des générations successives de néo-Canadiennes et de néo-Canadiens.
Les droits linguistiques des communautés francophones et autochtones doivent être assurés d'un statut, d'institutions et de services égaux à ceux des anglophones d'un bout à l'autre du pays.
Le transfert du pouvoir du gouvernement fédéral aux provinces et aux territoires est maintenant inévitable après la faillite de l'accord du Lac Meech.
Le fait de reconnaître le Québec comme une société distincte n'enlève rien aux autres provinces et territoires.
Les communautés autochtones constituent des sociétés distinctes et doivent jouir d'un degré d'autonomie leur permettant de se gérer actuellement et de déterminer leur avenir.
M. Marleau: Avant 1986, les chefs politiques ontariens et ontariennes ont signalé officiellement l'importance de la communauté francophone dans le développement de cette province, un rôle qui remonte à un peu plus de trois siècles. Depuis, la province a adopté la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français en Ontario. Dans notre mémoire nous citons son préambule. À noter spécifiquement dans le préambule est la volonté exprimée par l'Ontario qui désire sauvegarder la langue française pour les générations à venir. L'ACFO-Nipissing reconnaît les efforts que le gouvernement de l'Ontario a investis pour les francophones d'ici pour qu'ils se sentent participants et participantes au dynamisme de cette province. Aujourd'hui, ces efforts doivent être poursuivis et intensifiés au plus vite. Notre province doit exercer un véritable leadership auprès de la population anglophone du Canada. Étant au centre du pays et ayant la plus grande population francophone hors Québec, l'Ontario doit donner l'exemple aux autres provinces avec des actes clairs et concrets afin de démontrer que les communautés francophones et autochtones sont de véritables partenaires égaux au Canada.
Il est essentiel que la province de l'Ontario se déclare officiellement bilingue, comme l'a fait le Nouveau-Brunswick en 1982. Il faut aussi qu'elle tienne compte des droits, des intérêts, des besoins de la communauté autochtone.
Il est essentiel que la province de l'Ontario respecte le droit à l'éducation des francophones et des autochtones dans leur langue maternelle respective dès l'âge de trois ans jusqu'au postsecondaire, incluant la garderie, l'alphabétisation et la formation professionnelle. Toute institution découlant de ce droit doit être gérée par chacune des trois communautés nationales.
Il est essentiel que la province de l'Ontario reconnaisse l'égalité des chances des trois communautés nationales en plus de leur droit au bien-être et à une vie de qualité. Les services publics doivent donc être assurés dans la langue officielle de son choix. Sans restreindre la généralité de ce qui précède, les francophones ont besoin, en plus de services scolaires, des services dans les secteurs suivants: juridique, services sociaux et communautaires, santé, culture, communication, services municipaux.
Il est essentiel que la province de l'Ontario donne aux trois communautés nationales le pouvoir de gérer les structures politiques et administratives des services pertinents à leur épanouissement. Dans ce but, il faut assurer à long terme aux communautés nationales un financement équitable de leurs institutions.
En outre, l'administration publique de l'Ontario doit impliquer davantage ces régions dans l'élaboration de ses politiques sociales, économiques et culturelles.
Pour l'Ontario, il s'agit d'un test ultime: prendre courageusement l'orientation d'un véritable partage avec les trois communautés nationales.
M. Renaud: Pour ce qui en est de la région du Nipissing, les francophones du Nipissing ont les mêmes aspirations sociales et économiques que les autres francophones de la province. Faisant partie d'une des trois communautés nationales, ils veulent leurs établissements et des services pertinents à leur épanouissement. La programmation pour l'année 1991-92 de l'ACFO-Nipissing souligne prioritairement les aspirations et les intérêts des francophones de cette région.
Dans le domaine de l'éducation, on travaille à obtenir un ou des campus d'un collège français dans le nord de l'Ontario, à obtenir un ou deux conseils scolaires de langue française et à augmenter les services d'alphabétisation en français.
En santé et en services sociaux: établir deux centres médico-sociaux de langue française et augmenter le nombre de places dans nos garderies françaises.
En communication: établir un journal hebdomadaire français et établir d'autres réseaux d'informations, telle une radio communautaire française, dans le but de rapprocher nos sous-régions.
En politique: assurer des représentants et des représentantes francophones aux différents paliers gouvernementaux -- fédéral, provincial et municipal.
M. Marleau: En conclusion, il faut que les anglophones cessent de penser que le Canada leur appartient à eux tout seuls. Les francophones et les autochtones sont aussi des partenaires égaux. Seuls le respect et la valorisation de la langue et de la culture de chacune des trois communautés nationales assureront l'unité du Canada.
Il faut que l'Ontario intensive ses efforts déjà amorcés envers les francophones en proclamant la province officiellement bilingue. Ainsi elle assurera le leadership nécessaire pour créer l'unité nationale. La province doit aussi prendre tous les moyens possibles pour réduire l'assimilation des francophones. De plus, un effort semblable doit s'ajouter pour les communautés autochtones.
Comme exemple, la situation actuelle du Nipissing-Ouest démontre bien où les trois communautés nationales travaillent à devenir des partenaires égaux dans certains secteurs. Dans cette sous-région où les francophones sont majoritaires et les anglophones minoritaires, tous deux jouissent de plusieurs services offerts dans leur langue respective.
1110
M. le Président: Il y a des questions. On a un peu de temps pour ça. Ms Churley to begin.
Ms Churley: Thank you for your presentation. I am hearing myself in French here in my ear. It was very enlightening and I think the people from these towns are very lucky to have you representing them. My question is, a few times in the past a couple of people have brought up various scenarios of what it might mean to francophones in Ontario if Quebec were to separate from Canada and I am wondering if you have any comments on that in terms of the hard fight you have had over the years to ensure more rights for francophones, if you think having Quebec as part of the country is helpful to you in terms of making sure that that pressure continues to be there or if there are fears that if Quebec were to leave it would make it harder for the minority of francophones in Ontario to fight for their rights.
M. Marleau: Une bonne question. Il faut que je sois honnête pour dire que oui, il y a peut-être des peurs qui existent parmi la francophonie de l'Ontario. Mais je ne pense pas qu'on soit Québécois, nous sommes des Franco-Ontariens. La Loi 8 n'a pas été mise en place pour plaire au Québec, j'en suis certain, et je ne crois pas que le Québec se sépare.
Ms Churley: That is a very positive approach. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Harris.
Mr Harris: Richard, I appreciate much of your presentation is around the need for services in Ontario up to official bilingualism. I do not want to get into that debate. Official bilingualism seems to mean different things to different people and very often the arguments are not on the same playing field. What I want to do, though, is suggest to you that, as you have indicated, Bill 8 really is not of much significance, whether Quebec is satisfied that its demands are met, and while I understand where you are coming from and am supportive of some of your goals, you know, not quite all, you seem to be suggesting that if Ontario does all of these things and declares itself officially bilingual and the rest of it, this somehow is going to help keep the country together. Quite frankly, I agree with your assessment on Bill 8. I do not think it means boo as far as Quebec is concerned, nor do I think Ontario declaring itself officially bilingual will mean boo in helping Mr Rae and the Ontario government in negotiating with Quebec.
The reality of the situation and where I would like your input is in some of the significant issues that will be faced in dealing with Quebec, have been faced over the last 20 years and still have not been resolved. One of the aspects of Quebec's Bélanger paper suggests and just comes right out and says language should be a provincial responsibility. This would resolve this whole aspect in Quebec's eyes. Marcel indicated he does not see the Trudeau vision any more in Canada. I suggest to you that Quebec has consistently, repeatedly, unequivocally rejected the Trudeau vision and refused to sign that vision and Quebec continues to refuse that. Meech Lake refused to acknowledge that and I see no sign that is an option on the table, at least as far as Quebec is concerned. It strikes me that having language as a provincial responsibility allows all provinces to be equal in this respect of federal-provincial powers. I am interested in your reaction to that.
M. Marleau: Bonne question, Monsieur Harris. Ma réaction est que si la province avait fait des actes clairs et concrets pour reconnaître les trois communautés nationales, peut-être que les Québécois auraient considéré leur position. Dire que le Québec veut la juridiction sur la langue, je comprends très bien. Dire aussi que les Québécois ne font pas partie de la vision de Trudeau est un peu exagéré, parce que s'il y avait une province qui devrait être considérée bilingue, c'est bien le Québec où il y a au-dessus de 40% de Québécois qui parlent anglais. Alors, j'ai des difficultés à dire que les Québécois n'ont jamais adopté la vision de Trudeau. Je pense qu'ils sont allés loin et puis on mélange la bataille politique de centralisation et décentralisation avec celle de la langue. Il faut faire attention. J'espère que ça répond.
M. Beer: Ma question se porte aussi à la Loi 8 et aux deux perspectives. Je pense que ça peut être utile pour nous si vous pouvez nous dire ce que vous pensez maintenant, un an et demi après la mise en vigueur de la Loi 8. Quels changements est-ce que ça fait dans la région de Nipissing ? Jusqu'à un certain point vous avez souligné quelques lacunes dans votre présentation, mais qu'est-ce que ça veut dire pour les francophones de cette région ?
Deuxièmement, comme vous le savez sans doute, il y a chez les anglophones ceux qui nous disent que maintenant il faut être bilingue pour n'importe quel poste du gouvernement, et ça veut dire en effet que seulement les francophones peuvent avoir ces postes. Hier on a reçu quelques présentations de cet avis. Ma question est: que pensez- vous que le gouvernement devrait faire ? En tant qu'ancien ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, c'est une question qui m'occupait l'année passée et qui m'occupe encore cette année, pour assurer que tout le monde accepte pas simplement le principe de la Loi 8, mais en effet que la mise en vigueur se fasse de façon équitable. Qu'est-ce que, disons les francophones, le gouvernement pourrait faire ou devrait faire avec la communauté anglophone pour mieux faire accepter cette Loi selon vous ? Donc, deux questions des deux perspectives.
M. Marleau: Monsieur Beer, je crois que la Loi 8 est un avantage pour les francophones et je crois aussi que les anglophones comprennent peut-être mieux, avec la Loi 8, certains services qui sont essentiels pour la population francophone. Les discuter avec la Loi 8 en ce moment c'est que la mise en oeuvre est en échelon, donc si on regarde certains ministères, si on regarde le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires dans notre région, on y va à petits pas, on regarde quelque chose qui va être quatre, cinq ans, dépendant des agences impliquées. Pour nous c'est difficile, parce qu'il y a des services essentiels qui devraient être en place ; ça c'est un problème.
Par contre, pour adresser l'autre question, comment est-ce que les anglophones vont réagir face à une province qui est vraiment bilingue, et je pense que finalement la question va jusque-là, c'est que, si on regarde dans le district de Nipissing, si on regarde les écoles dans la ville de North Bay, le taux très élevé d'élèves qui s'inscrivent à l'immersion démontre que la population anglophone est très ouverte à avoir une province bilingue. Si on regarde dans la section anglaise du conseil des écoles séparées, plus de 70 % des élèves qui s'inscrivent en maternelle s'inscrivent dans le programme d'immersion. Et du côté public, je ne sais pas exactement le pourcentage mais il est très élevé. Donc, ça veut dire qu'il y a une éducation qui était faite. Les gens sont de plus en plus sensibilisés aux besoins.
Je crois que les propos de certains groupes que vous avez entendus hier à Sudbury, que seulement des gens bilingues ont des postes, il faudrait questionner, à savoir si peut-être les parents veulent que leurs enfants soient bilingues, non seulement pour avoir le poste mais pour être bilingues, pour avoir une meilleure compréhension et appréciation de nos cultures. Parce qu'ici dans le Nipissing, on volt de plus en plus un taux élevé de familles qui vont inscrire leurs enfants dans des cours d'immersion.
M. Winninger: Concernant les services que vous voudriez offrir en français, comme des centres médico-sociaux ou plus de places dans les garderies françaises, je me demande si ces services seront dans les secteurs privé ou public.
1120
M. Renaud: Présentement, l'ACFO se penche dans son comité de services sociaux, communautaires et santé à certaines demandes auprès du ministère pour deux centres médico-sociaux. Ce n'est pas dans le sens privé, c'est la formule qui est utilisée à travers la province si on regarde les centres à Toronto pour la population francophone. Pour ce qui en est de la garderie, avec la Garderie Soleil ici qui vient de recevoir des fonds et dont la construction doit débuter à l'automne, il y aura peut-être 100 places pour des élèves francophones. Là encore c'est les parents qui devront payer pour utiliser le service. Certaines places seront probablement octroyées par le ministère.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Actually I had a very similar question to the one that has just been placed. I want to, first of all, thank you for your brief. I am very happy that you gave the breakdown of the region, which is helpful to us, and your very practical solutions and, as you have answered the questions putting them into a much broader perspective, it has been very helpful for us.
I want to ask you a little bit about the day care, if you could just expound a little bit more on that. As you know, we did do a major study last year in the Legislature about this type of service and the francophones certainly made a very, very good case. Can you tell me, do you have some francophone day care centres here now and are they attached to the schools, or who is operating them basically?
M. Renaud: Présentement, dans la région nous avons une garderie ici à North Bay, la Garderie Soleil, qui est sous les auspices des Compagnons des Francs Loisirs. Eux ont un projet de construction qui débutera à l'automne. Ce sera la plus grande garderie francophone ou anglophone, je pense, dans la province de l'Ontario. Aussi à Sturgeon Falls il y a eu dernièrement des places réservées dans une garderie ; il y avait deux soumissions je crois pour Sturgeon Falls, où il y a présentement 24 places pour les francophones et il y en aura davantage.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Merci. I wish you well with the effort because I think this is where it all begins, in your day care facilities, as in ours.
M. le Président: Merci, Monsieur Marleau et Monsieur Renaud.
Could I call next Lana Mitchell from the group Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing. Okay, we will try later.
ANDRÉ LACOSTE
The Chair: André Lacoste.
M. Lacoste: Distingués membres de la commission -- j'allais même dire distingués membres fatigués et très patients de la commission -- je suis heureux de vivre dans cette magnifique démocratie qui me permet de me sentir chez moi et de m'exprimer librement dans la langue de mon choix sur une question aussi importante. Je parle en mon nom. Je suis retraité, même si j'enseigne presqu'à plein temps à l'université du Nipissing, et du français à des anglophones, s'il vous plaît.
Je voudrais commencer ma présentation par une question. L'Ontario a-t-il un rôle à jouer dans la redéfinition du pacte confédératif, redéfinition qui apparaît comme une évidence inéluctable à l'horizon ? De cette question je tire deux corollaires. Le premier: il est sûr et certain que selon toutes les tendances politiques en jeu, le vieux pacte confédératif agonise. On peut vouloir rêver en couleurs, faire l'autruche ou se faire croire que tout est parfait comme dans les meilleurs des mondes, que nous pouvons continuer à sommeiller, que le cauchemar va s'en aller, qu'un quelconque sauveur va tout régler et tout remettre dans le bel univers ordonné aux couleurs uniformes, aux idées bien contrôlées, aux ensembles bien unis. Tel n'est pas le cas. Nous ne pouvons nous dire: «Dormons et oublions, tout n'est qu'un mauvais rêve». Nous nous préparons ainsi à un réveil douloureux.
Le second corollaire: puisqu'il est évident que quelque chose doit être fait, est-ce que l'Ontario a un rôle à jouer dans cette redéfinition ? Au premier corollaire je ne répondrai pas davantage, puisqu'à mon avis il faut être drôlement borné pour ne pas voir le problème et les conséquences qui ne manqueront pas de suivre si on ne trouve pas de solutions adéquates, et vite.
C'est donc sur des réponses au deuxième corollaire que se concentrera mon mémoire. Et je commence en disant que l'Ontario a certainement un rôle à jouer dans la recherche d'une nouvelle entente constitutionnelle. Pourquoi ? Je vais vous donner quelques raisons. D'abord, parce que c'est une place qui lui revient tout naturellement, une place que tous ses partenaires s'attendent à le voir occuper, et voici pourquoi.
D'abord, la situation démographique qu'occupe l'Ontario dans le pays lui donne un droit tacite d'exprimer ses idées dans les domaines qui, sans être nécessairement de sa compétence directe, le deviennent indirectement parce qu'ils affectent une très grande partie de la population canadienne, celle de l'Ontario.
La situation économique du Canada --
M. le Président: Il y a un problème avec la traduction.
Ça va ? Are we getting the translation now ? Okay.
M. Lacoste: D'accord, donc je reprends ?
M. le Président: Oui, oui, si vous voulez ne pas recommencer, mais aller un peu --
M. Lacoste: D'accord. C'est donc sur des réponses au deuxième corollaire que se concentrera mon mémoire. Comme j'ai dit, l'Ontario a certainement un rôle à jouer dans la recherche de nouvelles ententes constitutionnelles. Pourquoi ? Parce que c'est une place qui lui revient tout naturellement, une place que tous ses partenaires s'attendent à le voir occuper.
M. le Président: Attendez une seconde. We are just waiting to get a signal. Could someone give me a signal when we are okay? All right.
M. Lacoste: Okay, on reprend. I would try in English, but I am not too sure about that. Pour la troisième fois -- j'ai l'impression de me répéter. Je vais mettre la même émotion. The show must go on. C'est donc sur des réponses au deuxième corollaire que se concentrera mon mémoire.
L'Ontario a certainement un rôle à jouer dans la recherche d'une nouvelle entente constitutionnelle. Pourquoi ? Parce que c'est une place qui lui revient tout naturellement, une place que tous ses partenaires s'attendent à le voir occuper, et voici pourquoi.
D'abord, la situation démographique qu'occupe l'Ontario dans le pays lui donne un droit tacite d'exprimer ses idées dans les domaines qui, sans être nécessairement de sa compétence directe, le deviennent indirectement parce qu'ils affectent une très grande partie de la population canadienne, c'est-à-dire celle de l'Ontario.
Deuxièmement, la situation économique du Canada ne peut oublier cette entité qui constitue l'une des roues motrices dans tout le système économique du pays. Comment l'Ontario pourrait-il être ignoré par tout ce qui touche l'économie de l'ensemble sans se sentir obligé de faire entendre sa voix ?
1130
Troisièmement, la position stratégique de l'Ontario le situe au coeur même de cet immense territoire. La province est dotée d'un ensemble de richesses naturelles qui en font la province la mieux nantie du pays, la plaque tournante de toutes les communications, tant est-ouest que nord-sud. On ne peut songer à une redéfinition de cet ensemble qu'on appelle le Canada sans compter sur ce pivot que constitue l'Ontario. C'est pour cela que l'Ontario a quelque chose à dire dans la démarche. Et à ceux tantôt qui se posaient une question, à savoir pourquoi l'Ontario devrait jouer un rôle, j'essaie d'y répondre ici.
Quatrième raison pour laquelle l'Ontario doit jouer un rôle important: la place historique qu'occupe l'Ontario dans notre pays lui confère aussi des droits et par déduction, des devoirs face à ce qui se passe dans notre pays. L'Ontario, avec le Québec, a été le berceau de ce pays. Il a été le tremplin duquel les découvreurs se sont élancés vers la découverte du Nord et de l'Ouest. L'Ontario a été aussi la barricade infranchissable, ne l'oublions pas, qui a empêché le Canada de devenir autre chose et sans doute de ne pas exister comme entité propre à lui. Cela aussi confère à l'Ontario un droit de parole et un droit d'action.
Quelle est la nature du rôle à jouer alors ? L'Ontario, à cause des énoncés précédents, devrait jouer un rôle prépondérant dans l'effort déployé par tous les partenaires pour sauver notre pays. On s'attend de notre province rien de moins qu'un leadership fort, engagé, éclairé, taillé à sa mesure.
II est évident qu'il doit se présenter comme un modèle à suivre pour le reste des provinces. Ce doit être un rôle tout empreint de «fair play» et de largeur de vue. Ce doit être un rôle qui s'affirme et au besoin s'impose malgré la course vue des éléments qui voudraient l'empêcher de s'exprimer fortement.
Quels sont les domaines où l'Ontario doit marquer des points, et dès maintenant ? Ce sont ceux où la controverse est la plus virulente, là où il faut désamorcer des enjeux, là même où on pulse les plus grandes sources de désaccord, c'est-à-dire, et si on va au fond des choses, c'est le respect des différences.
On l'a vu: dès les premières audiences que vous avez tenues, trop d'intervenants ont laissé couler le fiel d'une haine mal contenue plutôt que d'apporter des arguments sensés, pesés et objectifs. Encore trop de nos concitoyens, malheureusement, s'en prennent à ce qui fait la différence de notre peuple, les ethnics et les cultures diversifiées. On en veut aux francophones d'être francophones, aux autochtones d'être autochtones et bientôt aux minorités visibles d'être ce qu'elles sont, visibles, donc dérangeantes.
Une trop grande partie de notre population ne se sent pas encore assez canadienne pour ne pas se sentir menacée par la différence qui fait la grandeur, par la richesse de la palette culturelle qui fait la magnificence du tableau. Au contraire, on se cantonne dans des positions périmées qui pourraient beaucoup plus ressembler à l'Afrique du Sud, à la Russie et ses États balkaniques qu'à un pays qui a toujours voulu donner l'image de l'ouverture d'esprit.
Dans un dialogue comme celui que nous avons, que vous avez surtout et que le gouvernement s'est permis d'avoir, quelles voix faut-il écouter ? Dans tous ces débats, l'Ontario, qui prête l'oreille à ses citoyens afin d'orienter son action, se doit d'entendre tous ceux qui veulent bien s'exprimer. Mais quelles voix doit-il écouter ? Ce sont les voix de la tolérance, celles qui savent distinguer entre les peurs factices et les réalités enrichissantes, celles qui permettent de partager avec l'autre, d'ouvrir leur coeur et leur esprit aux différences sans pour autant se sentir tout menacées.
On doit écouter les voix de la raison, celles qui savent mettre de côté les peurs irréfléchies, les sophismes trompeurs, les «on dit» et les suppositions, les généralisations qui appliquent à tout un groupe les défauts des exceptions, ces voix calmes et lucides qui savent répondre par des solutions constructives plutôt que d'attiser le feu de la discorde.
Quelles voix écouter ? Les voix qui véhiculent l'exemple d'ailleurs, celles qui nous montrent le succès des pays qui ont su faire de la diversité de leurs cultures et des langues de leurs habitants une richesse qui fait l'envie de leurs voisins. Regardez l'Europe en particulier. À part les Américains, sauf le respect que je leur dois, quels sont les pays à forte teneur éducative à se contenter encore de se cantonner dans la connaissance d'une seule langue ?
Il ne faut surtout pas oublier dans tout ce débat la voix la plus importante, celle qui véhicule vraiment l'avenir de notre province, de notre pays, la voix des jeunes. Eux savent bien mieux que nous ce que veut dire le «village global», l'échange international, l'effet des déchirures du tissu culturel global, et si nous ne savons pas interpréter adéquatement les messages qu'ils n'ont pas toujours la chance de nous transmettre publiquement, comme c'est le cas présentement, ils s'empresseront aussitôt qu'ils le pourront, dans quelques années, ce ne sera pas long, de nous reléguer aux oubliettes ou aux musées comme on le fait des dinosaures.
Dans le dialogue, queues voix faut-il ignorer ? On écoute tout le monde, on entend tout le monde. Qui sont ceux qu'on doit ignorer ? Peut-on se permettre d'ignorer quelqu'un dans ce débat démocratique ? Ma réponse est oui. si on ne peut leur faire entendre raison. Les voici: les prêcheurs de discorde, sous leur couvert de la connaissance infuse, au nom des droits qui sont les leurs, en ignorant les droits des autres. Qui faut-il ignorer ? Les semeurs d'erreurs, ceux dont le jeu consiste à utiliser les faussetés érigées en système, les demi-vérités, les mensonges, surtout quand ils s'adressent à des auditoires non informés et susceptibles de les croire à cause du rôle que ces menteurs jouent quelquefois dans la société. Ce sont de faux prophètes qui tirent leur satisfaction dans la discorde.
Qui faut-il oublier ? Les retranchés dans des positions qu'ils considèrent confortables sans jamais se rendre compte que ces mêmes positions sont périmées, désuètes, dépassées par le temps et les événements. Ce sont ceux qu'on qualifie souvent de dinosaures dans notre société et qui déplaisent tant aux jeunes qui veulent bâtir une société nouvelle.
Qui faut-il oublier dans ce débat ? Les opposants chroniques à tout changement. Ce sont les insécures, qui voient comme une menace à leur bien-être tout changement à leur modus vivendi et qui se barricadent derrière des simili-règlements du type: «Cette ville se déclare unilingue», les radicaux, ceux qui sont prêts à tout casser, à jeter par dessus bord des valeurs qui ont fait l'orgueil de nos pères. «On va leur montrer. Casser tout, et puis après on verra bien ce qui va arriver». Ce sont des gens qui ne mesurent pas la portée de leurs gestes, des irresponsables qui, finalement, démolissent tout sans jamais rien construire.
Qui, à part ça, faut-il oublier ? Les assoiffés de pouvoir, ceux qui ne calculent que le nombre de votes qui leur permettra d'avoir leur nom en grosses lettres dans le petit journal local. Ceux qui rêvent de pouvoir décider pour les autres, de leurs biens, de leurs droits, de leur liberté. L'ostracisme n'est pas loin du pouvoir absolu et on sait que certains individus, comme certains groupes, se croient nés avec le pouvoir absolu. Ce sont les voix les plus dangereuses, celles qui se croient élues pour décider du sort des autres, même à leur détriment, sous leur couvert de la démocratie.
1140
En conclusion, l'Ontario a une chance unique de se positionner avantageusement dans le débat historique de l'avenir de notre pays. Il peut, par son exemple, couper court aux arguments les plus employés par ceux qui veulent briser l'unité de notre pays, à savoir, quels sont ces arguments ? Le rejet de la différence, la négation au droit de l'autre à être ce qu'il est dans la justice et la dignité, l'égalité de tous devant tous et partout. C'est ça qu'on nous dit quand on veut se séparer. On n'entend pas ça.
Si l'Ontario, dans le courage de ses convictions, déclare solennellement qu'il respecte la dualité linguistique des peuples fondateurs au point d'en faire un état de fait provincial ; s'il se dit capable de dialoguer avec les peuples autochtones et de rendre justice où justice doit être rendue ; s'il est prêt à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour assurer que partout tous et chacun puisse se sentir chez lui sans se faire dire qu'il n'a pas d'affaires là, parce qu'il est visible, qu'il parle français ou ne fait pas partie de la race dominante, alors l'Ontario sera la grand Ontario dont les jeunes générations d'aujourd'hui pourront porter fièrement les couleurs.
Est-ce que dans l'avenir ceux qui grandissent, nos jeunes d'aujourd'hui, ceux de la maternelle, pourront vivre avec ce que nous aurons contribué à créer maintenant ou devront-ils, dans quelques années, rouvrir portes et fenêtres de cette maison que nous leur aurons léguée et dans laquelle, de nouveau, ils se sentiront étouffés ? Pensez-y bien.
Mr Martin: You raise some very interesting questions and I think some very important questions in front of the process we are entering into here, the question of who we include and who we exclude. It causes me concern, but not a huge concern, when we talk about who we include, because I am always of the opinion that we include as many as we can and those who want to participate.
But there are many out there in our communities who want to participate who are being excluded, perhaps because they feel uncomfortable with the position they find themselves in, because of circumstances they see being beyond their control. So when they speak they do not speak perhaps so eloquently or in such an organized fashion as those who have thought about this for a long time. And they get labelled, and I think we have to be really careful about labels, like dinosaurs and that kind of thing, because there are very good people out there who have some real concerns about where this province is going re its position in front of the language question, the native question, and they are all very important questions.
However, they have to be listened to as well. Maybe it is not so much what they are saying that we should be listening to as who they are. They are people; the hurt that what they are saying is coming out of. If we can go beyond some of the barriers and limitations which, when we talk to people, we set up for ourselves, to listen more deeply to the soul, we might hear even from the anglophones who at this point come across as perhaps bigoted or somehow anti-everything, that they really do have a concern that is real. They are speaking out of their hurt and their fear -- maybe in some instances their ignorance -- more than actually being against anything. Could you comment a little further? That really concerns me.
M. Lacoste: Je peux vous répondre en français ?
M.Martin: Oui.
M. Lacoste: Loin de moi l'idée, d'abord, de caractériser ou de catégoriser certains groupes de personnel. Il ne faut pas écouter la voix de ceux qui prêtent à un groupe total les défauts de quelques-uns. C'est ce que je veux dire par là. Loin de moi l'idée de prétendre que tout un groupe de notre société, sous prétexte qu'un ou deux de leurs membres se sont exprimés d'une façon absolue et virulente, représente l'ensemble, loin de là. Au contraire, même, je pense que je l'ai dit. Il faut ignorer la voix, et quand je parle de la voix je ne parle pas de groupes, mais je parle d'individus qui veulent bâtir sur un état actuel des choses, une puissance, disons un avenir personnel. Il faut dépasser ces voix que j'ai dit de ne pas écouter et aller plus loin et voir le problème, ne pas se laisser tromper par les trompeurs, ne pas se laisser embarquer par les radicaux.
Mais ce sont toujours des exceptions. Ce ne sont jamais des groupes en entier, même quand vous entendez quelqu'un parler «au nom de». Rarement les personnel qui parlent «au nom de» sont-elles des personnel informées. Ah, il y a bien ceux qui sont des semeurs d'erreurs, qui en profitent pour semer des idées alors que l'auditoire n'a aucune façon de se renseigner. Mais je ne veux exclure, loin de là, je ne veux exclure personne dans le dialogue. Je vais exclure ceux qui ne veulent pas être inclus dans le dialogue, c'est-à-dire ceux qui veulent tout casser, ceux qui mentent, ceux qui se bâtissent du capital politique, ceux qui veulent profiter de la situation et non pas qui veulent profiter à l'ensemble. C'est ça mon idée. J'espère que mon message est passé de cette façon-là.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation, with the eloquence and passion with which you spoke about tolerance and understanding of differences, and how our strength is in understanding those differences.
Your presentation was very much contained within Ontario. It was characterized, if I may, by one of your first statements, that Ontario has a unique opportunity; what followed from that was how Ontario's unique opportunity would be within the province of Ontario -- and well said, in that respect.
However, there is a great deal of activity going on outside of Ontario, not only within Quebec but all provinces. With respect to Quebec, however, you are, I know, well aware of the activities which are now going on, and I am wondering if you might share with us the unique opportunity Ontario would have, not only in activities within the province of Ontario but, indeed, with respect to the activities which are going outside of Ontario. As there seems to be a move away from the status quo towards a distancing of the provincial powers in Quebec from the federal government, do you feel that that distancing of Quebec from the rest of the country in any way may threaten the strength of our country being tolerant and understanding for a diversity of individuals?
M. Lacoste: D'abord, il est évident que l'Ontario n'est qu'un partenaire. L'Ontario n'est pas l'ensemble du Canada, même si on aime dire que ce qui est bon pour l'Ontario est bon pour le Canada, et ce qui est bon pour le Canada est bon pour l'Ontario. C'est clair aussi que l'Ontario seul ne peut pas empêcher une catastrophe de se produire si la catastrophe doit se produire. Ce que j'aime dire, peu importe le tournant de l'histoire, au moins l'Ontario, à la suite de ce tournant, peut se dire: «J'ai assumé pleinement le rôle qui me revenait, d'essayer de faire de ce pays un meilleur pays», primo.
Deuxièmement, que la province de Québec se sépare. Comment l'Ontario va-t-il se situer face à l'ensemble, c'est d'histoire, ça c'est difficile à dire. Mais au moins encore une fois, l'Ontario pourra prendre le leadership de la reconstruction de ce que j'appelle cette partie de la division, et on aura sans doute confiance parce qu'on pourra dire: Au moment où il était le temps de sauver l'ensemble, l'Ontario s'est manifesté comme leader. On devrait être encore capable de se fier à l'Ontario pour rebâtir». Ce que j'espère, c'est que le Canada vient à bout de négocier une certaine entente, une certaine constitution où tous les partenaires actuels se retrouveront. À ce moment-là, et c'est là l'important, on sait que l'Ontario et le Québec -- toutes les statistiques économiques le disent -- ce sont d énormes partenaires; on les appelle les frères siamois. Le seul problème est où les couper, comment les séparer, parce que les deux économies sont absolument en interaction. Alors, que le Québec se sépare ou ne se sépare pas, les gestes que l'Ontario aura posés maintenant viendront éclairer et diriger les gestes qui se poseront demain, soit par une meilleure entente, une meilleure collaboration, soit par un meilleur partenariat, soit certainement par une meilleure confiance mutuelle. Et on a plus de chance comme ça de survivre, même séparés, qu'autrement.
1150
LOW INCOME PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT OF NIPISSING
The Chair: Could I call next Lana Mitchell from the group Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing?
Ms Mitchell: The first thing I would like to do is apologize that I do not have enough copies to distribute to everyone, but I left a copy with one of the organizers and she will be seeing that it goes around to everyone.
The Chair: That is fine. We can get them done.
Ms Mitchell: The main thing I would like to do is to make sure that when we look at everything involved in looking at Confederation, I think it is extremely important that all points of view are out on the table and are discussed and come out openly. I would like to address you on the concerns and issues I deal with on a day-to-day basis that affect myself, my family and my friends.
Just to give you an idea, LIPI, Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing, is a non-profit organization. We have been in operation officially since 1985. We are a consumer organization mandated to be both responsive and proactive around all issues of poverty and its symptoms and the roots that create poverty and allow it to exist in our country. We are constantly forced to function both in the role of advocate and information broker, as we see these are two things that are not enshrined as being accessible to all people.
That is one of our main focuses for this presentation, that information has to be made available to all people in an equal and accessible form. The follow-up to ensure that rights and full sharing of knowledge and entitlement is also a constant demand dealt with in our organization. These services relate -- and, to me, in a very disgusting manner -- to the fact that we constantly have to react to people who are denied rights that are already legislated. This has nothing to do with rights that are not legislated, that are not supposed to be equally allocated to people already; these are things that are already within our system that people cannot access.
People walk out of various social service agencies, whether it be provincially tinder the FBA or municipally under the general welfare assistance program, walk a block and a half over to our office, we make a phone call and all of a sudden their criteria or eligibility has changed. It has not changed; it is just that they know now that there is more than one person who is going to stand up for the rights of that individual. I think that is an appalling situation we have let ourselves reach, and something has to be done about that.
In the discussion paper that was released by the provincial government, which I got on Friday when I was out of town, which is part of my reason for being a little late today -- I am going to blame it on the provincial government; I think that is fair -- we have to look at the social and economic interests and aspirations as they relate to all the people of Ontario, but I do not think we can realistically do that until we make those social and economic interests available to all people. You cannot aspire to something you know nothing about, or have never had access to or an avenue to explore. The right to maintain dignity, the right to self-development, the opportunity to achieve: these things should be fundamental and they should not be denied or discouraged in anyone in any way, shape or form.
In the city of North Bay, as of December we have 280 families and 233 single individuals on our local housing authority waiting list for rent-geared-to-income housing.
This is a really under-represented number, because most people see the numbers on the waiting list and do not even bother to apply. Yet we are supposed to be enshrining in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms full access to all people to be able to function in our communities and society as a whole. These things do not exist and we know they do not exist, yet we do not seem to be moving in any way, concretely or appropriately, to be able to work within those numbers.
The number of people involved with social assistance is rising at an alarming rate within the province. At the end of December, if you look at the total population of Ontario and relate it just to the two main programs under social assistance -- FBA, delivered provincially, and general welfare assistance, which is delivered municipally mainly -- 28.99% of the population was on social assistance; this relates to adults, children and beneficiaries.
When I look at that number, it makes me wonder why we have waited this long and have let it reach this state before we have realized that there are roots to these things. It is not that people are lazy or people do not want to work. There is no work, and there is no infrastructure for people to be able to respond to even if they get it. We have a vast number of sole-support parents who cannot access child care whether they can afford to pay for it or not.
This is not guaranteeing rights or freedoms. This is just keeping people within class structures, which we try, for the sake of our consciences, to let on do not exist. It is time we woke up to this reality. Not that I think any of us have to wake up to it: it is time we admit it publicly and do something about it and take it seriously.
Our kids are streamlined in the education system. They do not have the same opportunities presented to them. They have a label attached to them, whether it be developmentally delayed, behaviour modification that is necessary. The things that are labelled on our children because we live in a public housing complex are deplorable. We are all worried about intergenerational poverty, yet we seem to do everything we can legislatively and as a society as a whole to promote it and keep it from changing.
If we look at the unemployment rates, in the two regions immediately closest to North Bay, we have rates for the northern Ontario region of 13% and 12.1% for the Algonquin region. Then we wonder why our numbers on social assistance are rising. We portray things in the media and give releases that show our municipalities struggling with the increase on social assistance rates, and then people blame everything going wrong in this country on the poor, the people who have no control over what goes on in this country to begin with. It is a way of people dealing with their consciences, because they cannot respond or react in a way to meet these needs. We have to look at a country that looks at full employment as a plan, not seeing as an economic stabilizer that unemployment is a good thing.
If unemployment is a good thing, that is fine. Then we had better take a realistic approach and be honest about it and stop whining and complaining every time there is a raise in social assistance case load. Because we are promoting it and, obviously, we must think that is acceptable and comfortable to promote.
If we look at statistics from the North Bay housing depot, a program that offers generic service to all income levels of people in need of adequate, secure and affordable housing, in the month of January alone in a city the size of North Bay we had a client intake of 701 people. This number represents 581 new clients, and these are not all people who are low income. These are people who cannot find accessible, affordable housing anywhere in the community: 581 were new clients and 120 were repeat clients, people who still have not found anything so they are still in crisis situations or they are in emergency home-sharing situations we have set up within our supports within the community.
These numbers relate to a community that is extremely progressive. We take advantage of all housing initiatives that come down either federally or provincially. We work and we respond immediately in a lot of ways that most communities, from my involvement across the province, do not. They do not have community development the same way we do in North Bay, and what they are going through is horrific.
You can take the example of what is going on in Hastings county, where the municipal council wants the names and wants to personally assess each person on the welfare rolls. That is deplorable, and it should not be allowed. Any person who thinks that is acceptable does not deserve to be where they are, and maybe they should try walking for a bit in that other person's shoes and then would realize that the systems we have enshrined in this country are not appropriate and are obviously not meeting the needs of the majority of this country.
The whole illusion in this country of women having reached equality is a major hurdle that the provincial government needs to take immediate notice of and evaluate as well. Women represent the majority of Canada's population at 52%, yet we still continue to be treated as second-class citizens under this whole myth that we seem to have little or nothing to feed into the economic dominance of this country. This country would not be where it is if it were not for women, and it is time we recognize that and treat that as we should.
1200
We continue to be looked at by the dominant masses as a sexual commodity to simply harass, assault and view through a stereotypical window that sees our sexuality as a business opportunity. These things have to change. I am not comfortable with that environment existing and thriving while my daughter is growing up, and I cannot believe anybody else with a daughter would be comfortable with it either.
To simply maintain a system that forces most women that are involved in abusive and battering situations from the time of birth and then later on into adulthood to be economically dependent on their assailants speaks for itself, and I do not think I even have to go into that any further.
Employment equity and pay equity need more than lipservice. They need a blanketing piece of legislation that expands both options and exits to all women. This has to include both the public and private sector employers. Exploitation must become a thing of the past.
It is time we took things seriously. Every time we seem to come up with a piece of legislation, it is either time limited or it only targets the public sector. It does not target the private sector, and people are working in horrific environments. They are not safe employment environments, and again people end up trapped on this whole so-called safety net, which is not a safety net, but a trap of social assistance. What happens is that rips your spirit. It takes away any type of motivation you have. You cannot function within that system because you are constantly getting doors slammed in your face and you are getting slapped around, literally, every time you try to move ahead or take an advancement.
If you try to go back to school, you cannot get the infrastructure to meet your child care needs, nor can you if your child is sick and you are in a workplace environment that does not respect the needs of meshing family responsibilities with employment standards, making it equitable, and takes advantage of the family situations in our society.
We have a perfect example right now. Last week, a local employer shut down. This employer has been using government initiatives to keep paying his employees for over a year, and now what happens is they close down and all these people are going to end up back on assistance. Most of them are women, because it was a program where they targeted single mothers because they see them as an untapped resource, but if you are willing to untap that resource, you have to provide the infrastructures people need to be able to survive to meet that. You cannot just constantly be feeding one side of the scale and not the other, because there is going to be a major crash. Anyone who is involved in business knows that. They cannot retrain their employees. The literacy levels we are dealing with are deplorable, and something has to be done about that as well.
There are statistics included in the report that demonstrate this fully and back up what I am saying. But I guess the main point I would like to get across is that this information is only the tip of the iceberg. If the province is serious and you are going across the province having these hearings, then there are some essential steps that the government has to take immediately. They have to deal with homelessness. They have to deal with hunger. They have to deal with poverty. They have to target full employment and the infrastructures, training and opportunities that people need to be able to meet those needs and demands.
They have to make discrimination illegal and enforce it. Having something on paper and giving it lipservice does no good, because I can take a native family in this community to go and look at an apartment and people will not say it behind their backs, they will say it right to their faces, "We do not rent to Indians here." That is deplorable. That should not be allowed in this day and age. There is a time that has to stop and the time is now. It should have been years ago, but we will settle for today.
I also think we have to deal with all of the massive economic and social inequalities in our province first.
Maybe it is a little bit backwards but in my mind I can honestly say that what I see is a province that does not fully have its social and economic policies functioning at an acceptable level. We are holding hearings on how to tell the federal government to do what it is doing better and we have not got our system organized well enough yet either.
If we are serious about what we want to do as a province, I think it is time the province developed some policies that relate directly to the rights and freedoms of children. We do not have any immediate policies as they relate to children and we need to establish housing as a fundamental right. If people have a solid base to work from, then they can move on ahead and they do not need all the structured and dependence-building types of systems that we have set up.
We need to establish a new provincial Human Rights Code that goes beyond rhetoric and is followed through. It is essential that the province enshrine equal rights for everyone as they encompass an adequate standard of living. This standard has to include a market-basket approach that contains self-optional access to adequate food, clothing, housing, education, medical care and appropriate social services. Then we can look to federally getting into place a social charter, which we do need to establish in a viable way, that will guarantee the constitutional right of a life of peace and dignity for everyone, free of poverty and homelessness and discrimination and violence.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Mitchell, for reminding us of some of those realities that we need to cope with. There are a couple of questions. Mr Beer, to start.
Mr Beer: Lana, I wonder if you could go into a little more detail on I think a fundamental issue that you raised in your comments which is around the kinds of rights and values that we try to enshrine in our Constitution and our legislation, and then the reality that people face in trying to make sure that in fact we live up to the kind of society that we say we are trying to create.
You were involved in the social assistance review. You are involved now in what I hope will be a major substantive change in terms of bringing together the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act. Through your own life experience you have seen how a great deal of that whole area functions or does not function. We have talked and I think your own committee looked at -- as I suppose Colin Maloney did in the Children First report where he and his committee tried to set out what they referred to as entitlements that children ought to have -- whether we needed to set out certain basic rights in the new legislation that would make clear what it was we were trying to do. Yet I have a sense that, even if we do that, we still have to implement all of that in a way that in fact lives up to the ideals and the values that we set out there.
Where do you see the problem? Is it simply one of political will, that those of us who have been there before have perhaps gone a certain way but have not been able to go as far as we ought to have? What causes this to break down? What do we need to do to make sure that we get done the kinds of things that sitting around a table we would all I think agree we want to have done in a society, yet if we are all honest, we have to recognize that we ain't there yet? What is your sense of that dilemma?
Ms Mitchell: I have always found it just really frustrating and I have never been able to quite figure out some of the sort of hypocritical moves we tend to make. We set up a shelter allowance, for example, under social assistance and we set it up below what we know the average rents are across the province. What was the point of doing that? Were we literally targeting to keep people so that they still could not get access to those homes, and we are just going to be more obvious about it now?
I do not see enough co-ordination between the ministries, and I think that is vital and really important. You have a rent registry that goes on by the Ministry of Housing. They can pull immediately what the average rents are and they can pull substandard housing out of that, to a degree. They know what the follow-throughs are. We have a Ministry of Health that knows what people need medically. We have legislation that we put into place, and I think if people spent a little more time when they are writing that legislation thinking, "This may apply to me some day," it would be written a hell of a lot better. Think of it that way and look at it.
I often think when I go down and meet with MPPs at Queen's Park, I am going to bring a little Fisher Price family and, when they come out with these just phenomenal ideas in their minds, I am going to say: "Well, you can take this member of the family. I'm going to go throw them out the door because you totally forgot about them. It's not going to work for this family because there is no follow-through, there is no test."
If you were in business and you were going to open up a firm to sell -- I do not know; I cannot really think of anything right now -- yo-yos, for example, you would make sure there was a market for them. We should be doing the same thing in social services. We should make sure that what we are going to offer to people there is a market for and it is the market we want. To get on to social assistance is hard enough; to get off it is next to impossible. And that is not the way it should be at all.
Thank God that system is there, and I can say that personally because at 17 I had a daughter and I raised her on my own, but to try to go back to school did not work. To try to get child care to go back to school did not work. I did not even have an outfit to wear to go to a job interview, even if I had had the skills. There are so many things that to me just seem so obvious that we are constantly leaving out, and after a while you begin to wonder if it is a plot or something.
I know that sounds paranoid, but that is how you start to feel because it seems like everybody says, "People never get off the social assistance." I challenge anyone that thinks that way to go on to social assistance and try it, because it just does not work that way. If you open up an opportunity planning unit or you try to do anything that relates to prevention or promotion, you are penalized for it.
1210
When I had credit counselling when I was on social assistance, I had taken my daughter's baby bonus and set it up in a trust fund for her so that I could have a university savings plan for her and I was docked that money. That is disgusting, as if they want my daughter to stay where I am. How could you even expect a parent to want that for her children? That type of thing should be promoted and not discouraged.
I think spending more time in the outfield -- I think there should be case load management. You have people making major decisions who have not talked to a consumer on that system in ages. That is why consumer counsellors would be so important because rather than having to have massive reviews at all times they could have ongoing facilitative co-operation and talking back and forth, as long as it is safeguarded and the bureaucrats are not allowed to use it and abuse it and just rubber-stamp things.
Mr Malkowski: I was very impressed with what you said, especially points that have moved me pertaining to the oppression of the system. Just to briefly say something, an experience I had gone through, I also went through the welfare system. I was a recipient and I went through also the vocational rehabilitation system. I said that I was bankrupt and I had legal fees and I was a father of four and l was labelled a slow learner. With all of those little labels and what you just depicted this morning, I could see where you were a victim and so was I. We need to see that there is a better system, especially accessibility, so we can have a support system, we can support one another; also development in the area of flexibility of regulations so we can have training for people to enter into the workforce.
As a VR counsellor, my previous position, I saw the other side on how the system operates, especially how they respond and how we can develop some sort of advocate position looking at the resources and the economic situation we face. You were very clear on your point regarding the Constitution and protecting the rights of children, the rights of family protection and exploitation and abuse. We need the welfare system to work for us and also to provide access in legal services arenas and to give poverty-stricken families access to training and education. We have to look at the values, and I think we have to incorporate the values you have displayed to us this morning into our Constitution.
The Chair: Do you want to make a comment on that at all, Ms Mitchell?
Ms Mitchell: Just that I appreciate those comments and I respect them. I am glad that you are where you are because now hopefully we will see some changes.
The Chair: Thank you very much again for your presentation.
Could I call Carol Jean from l'ACFO de Kirkland. Est-ce qu'elle est ici ? Non ?
ANITA CORRIVEAU
The Chair: Anita Corriveau.
Mme Corriveau: Distingués membres du comité, bonjour. Ma présentation sera courte et sera basée et sur le respect et la différence. De plus, je l'ai mise sur du vert, la couleur de l'espoir. Quand on a des adolescents à la maison, on espère à tous les jours.
Je vous remercie de me donner la chance de comparaître devant vous aujourd'hui afin de partager mes aspirations, mes inquiétudes, mes désirs, mes joies et mes recommandations. En tant que femme, en tant que francophone, mère de deux enfants, épouse, enseignante, gouverneure à la Fédération des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario, conseillère à l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, je viens vous livrer un message, vous parler de ma vision.
Le gouvernement a mis sur pied un comité spécial ou une commission comme tant d'autres qui se baladent d'un coin du pays à l'autre. Moi, je les appelle des commissions à réaction. Réaction à qui ? Réaction à quoi ? Vous le savez sans doute et moi je m'en doute: réaction à la commission Bélanger-Campeau. Je ne m'attarderai pas à vous énumérer tous ces groupes de consultation car je suis heureuse aujourd'hui d'avoir un mot à vous dire. Et me voilà.
Pour le résultat de ces orgies de consultation, eh bien, on verra. Je suis tout de même très optimiste face au nouveau gouvernement.
Laissons aux Québécoises et aux Québécois le choix, il est le leur. Parlons de nous, les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens. Nous sommes ici depuis déjà très longtemps, c'est-à-dire au moins 350 ans, et nous y sommes pour y rester ; aussi bien nous accepter. Je suis Franco-Ontarienne.
Nous avons dû nous battre pour les droits que nous avons acquis jusqu'à présent et nous n'avons aucunement l'intention de lâcher. Si les tribunaux sont nos seuls recours, eh bien, ils le seront. J'espère que non. Comme femme francophone c'est une double tâche, comme femme francophone autochtone, j'ai des points d'interrogation.
Le gouvernement doit reconnaître officiellement la dualité linguistique. Il faut un courage et une volonté de fer pour poser un tel geste, car il y a aura sûrement de l'opposition, mais je crois sincèrement que l'occasion est propice et il faut agir maintenant pour éviter de réagir.
Je parlais tantôt de commissions à réaction, passons à une commission d'action. Oui, l'Ontario se doit d'être un leader et c'est vous les élus qui allez le démontrer.
Les Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens ont acquis des droits aux compte-gouttes et le temps est venu de leur donner un bon verre d'eau. Il faut se parler, se comprendre et s'accepter dans le respect. De plus, il faut enseigner la tolérance et le respect à nos enfants. Je le fais aujourd'hui pour mes enfants et c'est ce que j'enseigne en salle de classe également, le respect de la différence -- vous connaissez le dicton «vive la différence » ? et bien aujourd'hui encore plus que jamais.
Le gouvernement doit, de plus, procéder à l'établissement de l'éventail complet d'institutions dans le domaine de l'éducation, à partir des garderies jusqu'aux collèges et aux universités francophones, assurant ainsi la survie de la francophonie en Ontario. Le financement de ces institutions va de soi, et ce au même titre que nos collègues anglophones. Soyez prêts aussi à reconnaître ces mêmes besoins chez les autochtones. Il faut éviter d'avoir recours aux tribunaux quant au respect du droit à l'éducation en langue française, et ce à travers le pays.
L'Ontario doit démontrer un leadership et devenir un modèle très important dans le débat constitutionnel et reconnaître ses trois peuples fondateurs. La communauté francophone doit être dotée de structures politiques et administratives, des services essentiels à son épanouissement. C'est un besoin fondamental à notre survie.
Le gouvernement doit encore reconnaître le statut légal de la communauté francophone et le refléter dans l'organisation des pouvoirs, tant au palier fédéral, provincial que municipal, de même pour ce que le peuple autochtone demandera.
En conclusion, je désire remercier sincèrement les 12 commissaires et je vous laisse mes quelques recommandations: que le gouvernement reconnaisse officiellement la dualité linguistique, tant sur le plan provincial qu'au plan municipal ; que le gouvernement garantisse les institutions francophones, toute la gamme, ainsi que le financement complet ; que le gouvernement accepte de travailler avec les autres provinces et le gouvernement fédéral pour assurer le maintien du bilinguisme dans les institutions gouvernementales.
1220
Vous avez souvent entendu le mot «leader», le mot «module», le mot «respect», le mot «différence», le mot «tolérance». Moi, je suis fière d'être Franco-Ontarienne et je suis fière aussi du nouveau gouvernement élu et je crois sincèrement que l'Ontario se doit de prendre position et d'être un leader dans ce débat.
Je vous remercie de votre attention et je vous souhaite bonne chance dans vos délibérations prochaines face aux décisions que vous aurez à prendre, face à la population ontarienne, aux francophones, aux anglophones et aux autochtones de l'Ontario.
M. le Président: Merci, madame. Est-ce il y a des questions ? Mrs O'Neill ?
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you very much for your presentation. I certainly liked the word you chose to begin, which was hope. I like the other words you chose: vision, respect and understanding. I had some difficulty with your perception of what we are doing. wanted to know whether you have read the document.
Mrs Corriveau: I did not receive it.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Okay. Changing for the Better. I hope you will take a copy of it. I would like to ask you then why you think this committee is reacting, if you have been watching, because if the hearings to this point have been any indication, Bélanger-Campeau has come up maybe once or twice, Allaire maybe 5 or 10 times, but there seems to be a real Ontario stamp to what we are hearing, is my perception, rather than a reaction to what is going on outside. I wondered if you would tell us where you get the perception that we are reacting or that this committee is a reaction.
Mme Corriveau: Oui. D'abord, avec toutes les commissions qui ont été établies, c'est peut-être des fausses perceptions que nous avons eues et personnellement, j'ai eu l'impression que c'était peut-être une commission à réaction. J'aimerais mieux que ce soit une commission d'action. C'est ce que j'espère que ça va devenir.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I think if you read the questions you will see that we are asking Ontarians to think about their own values. We are asking them to think about where Ontario places itself in Confederation, as the committee's name itself states, and like you have suggested, we have set aside one whole section of questions on the native issue, which I am very happy that we have heard included many times this morning.
I really do feel this is becoming a model and I think the way in which this committee is making itself accessible and involving a number of people every day and travelling as we are, I think you will see it is more proactive than maybe your original impression. I hope you will definitely take the document, and because you are so interested and have your unique background and because you are a teacher, I think you said, we would like you to respond to the questions if you have time to do that and send them to us. Thank you.
Mr Harris: Anita, one of the difficulties that the provinces and the federal government have found in the striving for this Constitution that is acceptable is that most of the groups that have come before it, including the provinces themselves in provincial-federal powers -- I mean, half of the Constitution is how the powers are going to be divided up and the other main thrust is the individual rights being protected through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The difficulty that first ministers have found themselves in, and those negotiating to try to come to a consensus, is that everybody seems to feel that all their problems can be solved in a constitutional document and everybody wants this document to be perfect. We heard an excellent presentation from Lana of many things that are very wrong and we would all agree with that. Yet, we have to wrestle with: "Can they be solved in a Constitution. Is that the right vehicle to solve all the problems of the world? Are we going to solve all the native concerns in a Constitution?"
Let me get to the concerns of Franco-Ontarians of rights, of services, of equality that they seek in Ontario. Do you feel that they can be resolved in the Constitution or is it something that we can come to some consensus on to keep our country together and agree on federal-provincial powers and agree on some rights that have to be enshrined, accept that it is a long way from perfect, accept that it will need refinement over the next 100,000 years -- hopefully, that we are still together, year by year, decade by decade -- and in that vehicle still satisfy the concerns of Franco-Ontarians that their concerns can be addressed equally as well?
I have been a little philosophical as well, but the truth of the matter is this is what this committee is trying to do. We are trying to hear from Ontarians, we are trying to get a viewpoint of what it is they want. Then we must represent a viewpoint to the other provinces and to the federal government that says this type of constitutional framework will allow us to work towards what Ontarians want out of Canada, and what Newfoundlanders want, and the west and the others. But we are never going to be able to solve all the problems in the Constitution.
So you are before our committee. Do you have any thoughts on that, of many of the things you were asking Ontario to do? Does it matter if we even have a Constitution at all? I mean, would life go on and could Franco-Ontarians meet their aspirations and goals even if we do not have a country or a Constitution? I think we have to start to ask these kinds of questions because we are never going to have a perfect document.
Mme Corriveau: Je peux répondre ?
M. le Président: Oui.
Mme Corriveau: Oui, certainement, basé sur un consensus comme tu as mentionné, et ce consensus-là doit être basé sur le respect de l'individu. C'est à travers des forums comme celui-ci qu'on va aller chercher l'input des gens pour essayer de mieux répondre à leurs besoins.
La dame juste précédente mentionnait qu'il y a des problèmes au niveau des services sociocommunautaires. C'est peut-être le temps maintenant d'aller former un forum, d'aller chercher ces gens-là, à savoir de quelle façon on peut mieux répondre à leurs besoins.
Alors, on revient à un forum de consultation comme ça avant qu'il n'y ait une crise.
M. le Président : Merci, madame. On est très conscient, en tant que comité, de notre rôle, ce que vous avez appelé la nécessité d'être un comité d'action, et je crois qu'on va essayer de répondre à ces besoins.
1230
VICTOR BOLDT
The Chair: I call next Victor Boldt.
Mr Boldt: Mr Chairman and honourable members here, my vision of Canada is maybe a little bit unusual. I am surprised that it has not been mentioned so far. It seems almost self-evident to me that John A. Macdonald, when he first thought of Canada, had a vision of a central, unified government with an unwritten Constitution modelled upon the British system. That vision was interfered with when he met with George-Étienne Cartier, representing the francophone community in Quebec. The situation was unusual. I want to compare what has happened in Germany since the Second World War.
The Germans, being a defeated people, had a federal government imposed upon them by the victorious allies as a punishment to reduce their efficiency in government and in military operations as well. Now, that same imposition has been made upon us by a defeated minority, francophone people in Quebec, not as a punishment but as an adversary measure to maintain their own authority against an enemy who has conquered them and they want to maintain their parity, their control in government.
Now, that situation is about to end because Quebec is going to leave us. I think the handwriting is on the wall. I think that is a given, and so what I think we have to do is go back to the original plan that John A. Macdonald had in mind. I think I can persuade you that there are a number of benefits.
For example, provincial licences to professional people such as medical doctors, lawyers, dentists, university professors, engineers, what have you: when those people graduate from provincial universities, their access to other provinces for practice is strictly limited. Now, I know that every year Americans come to the Park Plaza Hotel in Toronto and they advertise and get medical doctors and nurses who depart and leave this country. We call that a brain drain and it is happening all the time because of provincial regulations. If we had a national standard, it would not happen. It would not be completely eliminated, but it would be reduced.
Licences for skilled craftsmen: I had a plumber who did a job for me. In Expo 67, when he tried to go to Montreal to work on a job which was incomplete, funded by the federal government, he was denied a chance to work his trade because he was a foreigner coming from Ontario. I think that is a disastrous situation.
Canadian truckers need 10 licences, 10 sets of regulations to cross Canada. That is a disaster.
Canadian brewers: They need provincial authority. They must build in every province where they sell beer. Both truckers and brewers, I note, are exempt from the free trade regulations because they simply cannot compete. They have been exempted, and I say if we removed provincial regulations, we would be in a position to compete.
Now, Ontario divorce courts are a problem. I do not know how many women in Ontario are divorced and expecting alimony payments from their husbands. About 80% of them is the figure -- I could be wrong about that -- are not receiving them because their husbands have simply reneged on their government order. The easy technique they have is to absent themselves and go to a foreign province where there is no extradition treaty, and that does happen.
Dr Henry Morgentaler, for example, is providing a service to Canadian women. This is controversial I know, but he is a person who is relying upon the court system and he has had to go to court in every province where he intends to operate. I think this is a disastrous violation of the court system which should be stopped.
Trade and commerce: I can remember during the free trade negotiations American businessmen complained that in trying to arrange free trade, they had to negotiate with 10 separate fiefdoms. That is the phrase I remember. The federal government had to engage a civil servant by the name of Lise Lachapelle -- I remember her name very well -- to approach each separate provincial government separately to see if she could persuade them to relax on some of their provincial regulations on trade so that they could deal with the American companies. This is disastrous. We have Meech Lake, which gives the provinces extra rights, and we have a free trade deal which requires a stronger federal government and it seems to me that the Meech Lake hand does not know what the free trade hand is doing.
Oh, education is most important. At the present time, when a member of the armed forces of Canada living in Cold Lake, Alberta gets transferred to Ottawa or to North Bay, his dependants are in real trouble. The principal of the school where they attend has to decide, what grade will that person be in? Will he be in grade 3 for arithmetic, grade 5 for history, grade 7 for something else, sometimes grade nothing for something because they did not have music in Alberta? I think that is a disaster and it is a serious imposition upon our Canadian armed forces and it restricts transfers of people across the country.
All of these can be eliminated, I think, by eliminating the provincial powers which exist at the present time. If we have a unified central government, the federal government can handle all of this. There is a tremendous overlapping of jurisdictions. Those of us who remember the flooding of the Sturgeon River, Lake Nipissing and French River watershed remember that we had great difficulty deciding who was responsible for controlling the level of the waters at any level. It was difficult to pin down because there were so many levels of jurisdiction, and this is a characteristic of Canada.
There are a tremendous number of overlapping jurisdictions; for example, Indian affairs. The Constitution gives these powers to the federal government, but it seems to me that all the provinces are involved in this, especially the province of Quebec. The Department of National Health and Welfare is involved; taxation -- Quebec taxes, other provinces do not; the Department of National Defence. I am disturbed that at Oka, the Premier of Quebec was in control of the Canadian armed forces. That bothers me.
Senate reform is another proposal I have. To take up the powers of the provinces, senators would represent those provinces, and I have three different plans in mind; at least they are all in the books, anyway. The triple E Senate, which is elected, equal and effective, has been proposed by Premier Getty. Premier Wells, I notice, has now endorsed it, and both of them have a special purpose in mind. They want to control the powers of the two central provinces now, Ontario and Quebec, which may, because of their population majorities, be unfair in legislation against the western provinces. I think that is a legitimate desire.
There is another plan for the Senate, Premier Peterson's half-elected and half-appointed version. Minorities can be represented by appointment. For example, if we have problems with our Indian minorities, our francophone minorities in other provinces, the Jews or what have you, they can be represented by appointment in the Senate. I notice that this plan is now being used in India, and I am told that it is fairly successful, although I do not know personally.
Of course, there is another special joint committee on Senate reform which is tabled in the House, and it gives the west larger representation.
Now, here we have three plans and we are fooling around with the idea of Senate reform. No one is doing anything about it. We want a federal government that will do something about it.
One more thing. These federal-provincial meetings between premiers and prime ministers I think are a disgrace, with all the wrangling as to who is going to control what and the fed-bashing. Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to complain about it. It was fed-bashing from beginning to end, and the premiers would get on television and put on their nice suits and cater to their home audiences. It was provincial patriotism against federal patriotism, and I think it is not healthy.
Other quarrels we had: the Alberta oilfields and the national energy program. Who controlled the oilfields in Alberta? That was a point of dispute. The offshore oilfields of Newfoundland: another point of dispute. This has got to end.
I say the solution is to let Quebec go independent the way it wants. At this moment I hear two voices at the same time from Brian Mulroney and Keith Spicer and they are shouting at me, "Bigot." I say: "Come on. Put on your thinking caps. I am only accepting the positions of Jacques Parizeau of the Parti québécois and Lucien Bouchard of the Bloc québécois, and in Quebec they are now heroes. They are going to be patriots and one of them is going to be the first Prime Minister of Quebec. If I am going to be associated with those people, I want to be a national hero in Ontario as well as they are. I am not a bigot at all.
The person I fear, though, is Robert Bourassa. When he presents his Allaire commission -- well, it has already been presented, I see -- he is going to curtail the provinces and the federal government so badly it is going to be worse than the British North America Act, worse than Meech Lake. It is the next, third step, and I am thinking that what they are after is to break up the country into 10 separate blocs and then they can be independent and be one of a number of 10. That may be revenge for the battle of the Plains of Abraham, I do not know.
Speaking of the battle of the Plains of Abraham, I am sorry to say that there is a lot of hard feeling. It is still there. Animosity is still there. If you go to Quebec City, look for a statue of General Wolfe. You will not find one. You may find a small stone about this big and it says, "Here lies," or "Here General Wolfe had his last drink of water. God bless him," or something like that, and then you look at the statue of Montcalm. It is magnificent and it is immense. It has a stone banister around it and then flowers around it.
You have the impression, "Je me souviens." I ask the man, "Je me souviens de quoi?" And he says, "Je me souviens que nous étions français, we remember when we were French." So I asked him, "Well, what are you now?" "Well, we're Québecois. We are Canadiens, but not Canadian." And when Prime Minister Mulroney keeps talking, "They are Canadians," he is not telling the truth, because they do not think of themselves in that way at all. Incidentally, every licence plate in the province of Quebec has got the same impression: "Je me souviens." They have been in mourning because they were associating with us for all of this time. I mean, how can we win?
1240
How did this come to be? If you really want to know about how Québécois think, go to some of their churches. You will find out. The Roman Catholic Church has been building up this hostility with its assistant, the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society. Did you ever see one of these Saint-Jean-Baptiste societies? They control the province. They control language, religion and nationalism, and these are the same forces which are wrecking the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics today. The Soviet Union is falling apart on these forces. I will say it again: language, religion, nationalism, and those are the same forces which are breaking up Canada today. This is not the end. If Quebec goes, other religious and national forces may come about.
Now if I am a bigot, I am in good company, because Hugh MacLennan who wrote the novel Two Solitudes back in 1945 said exactly the same thing that I am saying now. I am sorry our politicians have not read the navel.
We have other benefits. We can stop pretending and recognize that we are giving $10 billion in equalization payments to Quebec every year for which it is not grateful. We can reduce the national debt of $350 billion over a period of 35 years and then we can have no GST. We do not even need it.
The bilingualism situation, the bilingualism program, I think, has been a disaster. Monolingualism in Quebec has caused a lot of dissension there, and the two bilingualism programs under Trudeau and Mulroney have caused an awful lot of hard feelings in the rest of the country. I am not suggesting that francophones should not speak French, but what is happening -- this is the perception -- is that people who speak French are being given extra bonuses by being given promotions and job opportunities not available to English-speaking or other people. I am talking about the armed forces, the RCMP, the federal civil service and the provincial civil service. I think there is something in that.
The eternal wrangling between Quebec and anglophone people, I think, should come to an end, and here is a perfect opportunity. I do not see it happening under Prime Minister Mulroney, because with Meech Lake and the Oka crisis, he has really disgraced himself. I think he is the central force of disunity in this country. For example, only yesterday, in a speech in Ontario talking about Canadian unity, he came up with a plan. When Quebec goes, he says, Ontario is going to dominate and it is going to have the powers of veto and it is going to govern this country just as Quebec did. This man is supposed to be making a speech on unity? I think he is the greatest farce for disunity we have had. I make a proposal for you. Let the man go by impeachment or any other means, and get someone who is interested in Canada. The only person I have in mind is Clyde Wells of Newfoundland, who has spoken so well for us on our behalf so far.
Ms Churley: Thank you. I just want to touch on a couple of things. You mentioned the word "perception." I think you used the correct words in terms of the word "perception," that francophones are getting more opportunities and benefits than, say, anglophones. I think that is a very important point, that in fact it is perception and that this is a bit of affirmative action going on here, because francophones have been left behind for so long. I am glad you used the word "perception." It is important that a lot of education be done around that.
I have to admit I personally disagree with your point of view. I would be very unhappy to see Quebec leave. I think that it is having the two cultures is what makes this culture great.
But I want to ask you a question. Specifically you seem to be suggesting that if Quebec were to leave, we would be able to easily form a central, strong government.
That seems to imply that there are not other provinces that also have a lot of problems with even the centralized government we have now. I believe that we would still have many of the same problems -- the focus is on Quebec -- that there are a lot of provinces that want to have more powers than they do now. So I just want to ask you why you think if Quebec left we would be able to form a strong central government.
Mr Boldt: I have to admit that the provinces were created as a result of the British North America Act, as a result of George Etienne Cartier's representation to John A. Macdonald. I have to admit that. But now that they are here, an awful lot of damage has been done and there is an awful lot of provincial nationalism or provincialism. I do not even know what the word is now, but there is a hostile feeling to the central government. It probably will be difficult to persuade them to adopt this attitude, but I am hoping that it can be done.
Mr Harnick: Sir, I do not wish to be derogatory in any way, but you have got somewhat of a cavalier approach as to how we are going to solve this problem. The approach really is, if Quebec wants to go, let them go. But there is an angle that you have neglected to talk about and it is a fact that between Ontario and Quebec $30-billion worth of trade is done annually. How do you reconcile this cavalier approach you have taken with the economic reality? What happens to the $30-billion worth of trade? How is it maintained?
Mr Boldt: I have no objection to trade. We are trading with Canada, Mexico, all kinds of countries. I do not object to trading with Quebec.
Mr Harnick: But with all due respect to you, if you take the cavalier approach, can you guarantee that the ability to continue that trade is going to be there? People in Ontario can be hurt very badly in an economic sense, as can people in Quebec. I do not think you have thought your position out.
Mr Boldt: Mr Harnick, I think --
Mr Harnick: You have not dealt with the economic reality is what I am telling you. I am giving you the opportunity to do that now.
Mr Boldt: As I say, Canada trades with Mexico, with Japan, with the United States, with any number of countries. I do not see any restrictions. I do not think that separating into a different country is going to restrict trade whatsoever; no change.
Mr Bisson: I wish you were right, that there are not any restrictions when it comes to trade, because one of the difficulties we have with our economy today is the problems we are having with access to the American market.
I am interested in one thing that you are saying, because I tend to take an opposite view when it comes to federalism. I believe, yes, that we need to have a strong federal government to a certain point, but you seem to imply that by giving the provinces more powers and the ability to control their own destiny and to develop their own programs suited to their regional needs, that somehow is detrimental to the nation on a whole.
I would like to take as an example Canada overall. We have not done too badly for ourselves aver the past 120-odd years. We have managed to build a fairly equitable nation that provides for the sick, for the old and for the unfortunate, a fairly good standard of education we still need to work on. The thing is, where I am having a hard time is if we are saying we give all of the control over to the federal system. How do we recognize the regional differences that are within the country?
People right now I think are tending to aim at Quebec as being the only place that has regional differences, but we are from the north, you and I, and we recognize there are regional differences here in northern Ontario that sometimes are not appreciated in other parts of this country, even for that fact, in this province, or the west or the east or the far north. How are you able to develop programs that are specifically targeted to the needs of that region, such as northern Ontario, if you do not have control of your own agenda in being able to put that forward?
I would be very interested because I think we have done a fairly good job with the federal system that we have, which does allow provinces to have some power but the federal government then sets standards, such as it did back in the 1960s when we introduced the current medical care program that we have now. It was a province that came out with the idea.
Mr Boldt: Right.
Mr Bisson: And eventually introduced it in the province and consequently the federal system put standards by which every other province across this nation benefited.
Mr Boldt: Right.
Mr Bisson: Explain to me how you are saying we need to set national standards, because we have done fairly well the other way.
Mr Boldt: May I answer, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Boldt: In my submission I thought I approached that, but maybe I have not said enough. The United States has a wonderful system in its Senate, in which two senators per state represent their regional interests. What I suggested here, and maybe it was not put --
Mr Bisson: But they do not have the social fabric we have in this country. That is a big difference, that is what I am saying.
Mr Boldt: Perhaps I may finish, though.
Mr Bisson: Okay.
Mr Boldt: Every province, or if you put them together, lump them together in regions which might be even more equitable, every region or province represented by senators would then be accountable for their particular region, and these people would be elected and that seems to make the difference I think in the United States and it should make the difference in Canada.
Mr Bisson: I tend to disagree.
The Chair: All right. I think we will end there. Thank you, Mr Boldt. That concludes the list of speakers for this morning. We will recess at this point until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1251.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1410.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We are resuming our hearings this afternoon from the Royal Canadian Legion hall in North Bay. We heard this morning from a number of speakers and we have an afternoon and evening of further speakers to hear from.
FÉDERATION DES FEMMES CANADIENNES-FRANÇAISES
DÉPARTEMENT D'HISTOIRE DE L'ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE ALGONQUIN
The Chair: I call Julie Champagne and Bernard Giroux to come forward. I gather it is a joint presentation.
Mme Champagne: Bonjour, bon après-midi tout le monde. Mon mémoire est au nom de la Fédération des femmes canadiennes-françaises et du département d'histoire de l'école secondaire Algonquin de North Bay.
La Fédération des femmes canadiennes-françaises a vu le jour en Ontario en 1914, lors de la crise du Règlement 17. Depuis, cet organisme s'est toujours fait un devoir de servir la cause de la francophonie, constamment remise en question dans la province et même dans le pays. Il est donc du devoir de toutes nos membres de faire front commun à ce moment-ci pour défendre les droits linguistiques et culturels de notre minorité.
Depuis la conquête de 1759, le Canada a connu des difficultés face à son identité. En effet, une longue suite de tergiversations tissa son histoire à partir d'essais réels d'assimilation repris avec plus ou moins de véhémence sporadiquement ou de façon moins fracassante à d'autres moments. Même si le gouvernement canadien s'est efforcé d'apporter des modifications temporaires par certaines aménités récentes -- la Commission sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme, ou la Loi sur les services en français de l'Ontario -- ces solutions n'ont pas vraiment touché à la source profonde et réelle du problème, à cause de l'atmosphère psychologique dans laquelle ces mesures furent édictées. Récemment, les protestations du Sault-Sainte-Marie autant que les pourparlers de l'accord du Lac Meech en font foi.
Tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes, aussi longtemps qu'ils aient vécus, sont plus ou moins hantés et même ennuyés par ces questions qui les divisent depuis trop longtemps.
En 1864, George Brown de l'Ouest canadien décrivait ainsi la situation: «Nous avons deux races, deux langues, deux systèmes de religion, deux systèmes de tout. Il a donc été impossible que, sans sacrifier leurs principes, les dirigeants des deux provinces se rencontrent pour former un gouvernement. Chaque année les difficultés se sont accrues».
Ainsi, les faits ont été établis depuis 1864 et même avant, et nous n'avons rien appris de différent depuis. Face aux mêmes problèmes qu'on ressasse encore aujourd'hui, quelle solution magique le Canada va-t-il pouvoir apporter à un problème aussi vieux ?
Étant donné que la Confédération avait avant tout un but économique sans trop de considérations pour la réalité sociale et culturelle, comme dit George Brown, au prix de «sacrifier des principes», il est évident que le peuple canadien a fait du chemin et qu'il n'est plus prêt à sacrifier ses intérêts culturels aujourd'hui. En conséquence, il convient d'aborder le problème sur ces deux composantes coexistentielles: l'aspect culturel et l'aspect économique.
Aspects à prendre en considération. Tous les humains sont égaux ; le peuple est diversifié dans sa langue et sa culture ; le discours culturel devrait englober tout les aspects du peuple canadien: autochtones, Français, Anglais ; et c'est l'Ontario qui doit prendre un rôle de leadership face au reste du Canada.
Si tous sont égaux, tous ont des droits, et nulle autre solution que l'égalité, c'est-à-dire droit aux deux groupes linguistiques dans leur langue et leur culture, et droits des Indiens à leurs territoires et à leur autonomie.
Dans le monde actuel, toutes les structures politiques éclatent à plus ou moins brève échéance pour répondre plus spécifiquement aux besoins différents des populations. Que ce soit en Chine ou en URSS, la force ne peut venir à bout de la volonté des peuples ; elle ne fait que retarder une échéance. L'Ontario se doit de prendre un rôle de leadership, non seulement à cause de sa force économique, mais aussi de par sa situation géographique. En effet, n'est-il pas normal de vouloir se joindre au plus fort ? De plus, l'Ontario abrite déjà le plus grand nombre de Canadiens de langue minoritaire commune. Le leadership de l'Ontario peut donc s'avérer de grande importance pour le reste du pays.
Dans la conjoncture actuelle, tout Canadien bien-né ne peut se résigner à voir le Canada divisé en son centre par la république du Québec. L'Ontario a donc plus que toute autre province avantage à faire partie de la meilleure solution pour tout le pays.
Enfin, l'heure est venue de trouver des solutions nouvelles aussi extravagantes qu'elles puissent être. Qu'on ose laisser de côté l'idée que la démocratie en termes de majorité doit prévaloir. Attardons-nous à l'autre aspect de la démocratie qui implique que tous les membres de notre société canadienne ont droit de se faire entendre et de se faire écouter. C'est la solution magique qui nous aidera à chanter encore pour de nombreuses années: «Ô Canada, terre de nos aïeux... ton histoire est une épopée des plus brillants exploits».
Cet exploit gigantesque que nous avons chanté depuis notre enfance, c'est dans la compréhension et la largeur d'esprit que nous devons l'expliciter aujourd'hui. En fait, le Canada a plus que moins souvent été bénéficiaire de sa diversité. C'est ce que l'Ontario se doit de souligner pour le plus grand bien de sa population, et encore une fois, c'est l'hymne national qui nous dicte de protéger nos foyers et nos droits.
Recommandations: Égalité de tous dans leur langue et leur culture ; égalité de soutien monétaire pour toutes les écoles subventionnées par le gouvernement ; égalité d'emploi partout mais surtout en éducation ; droit des deux peuples minoritaires, francophones et autochtones du Canada, d'administrer leurs institutions eux-mêmes ; une province de l'Ontario officiellement bilingue ; une union économique des provinces genre CEE, communauté économique européenne. Merci de votre attention.
Mr Offer: One of the last recommendations you made was an economic union for all of the provinces. When I heard that recommendation, I tried to remember some of the things in your presentation; I did not hear a lead-up to that type of recommendation. Are you, as a result of that recommendation, somewhat acknowledging that there is going to be a sovereignty type of association with Quebec? Could just expand upon the reasons for that particular recommendation?
M. Giroux: Si jamais il y avait une discorde et qu'on ne pouvait pas arriver à une nouvelle entente entre toutes les provinces et les territoires sur le plan politique, il faudrait s'entendre sûrement sur le plan économique. Mais il est aussi préférable à l'intérieur de la Confédération que, même sur le plan économique, on ouvre davantage les frontières entre les provinces. On le fait avec les États-Unis avec le libre-échange. On essaie d'enlever autant de barrières tarifaires que possibles avec nos voisins du sud, mais entre les provinces on garde encore des frontières tarifaires. Ceci devrait disparaître.
1420
Ms Churley: You said when you spoke, "Put aside the idea of democracy," meaning the majority, "and all members of society should be heard and listened to." I wanted you to expand a bit on that, because, of course, we are here in this room and in this province to hear people, no matter what their views are. Some people are saying, for instance, that there should be referendums held on francophone issues or separation issues, that sort of thing. A speaker this morning -- I do not know if you were here for that -- talked about the fact that basically, if you listen to the majority of people, then you go in one direction; as a group listening to people we have to hear everybody, but we have to make sure that everybody, as much as possible, is equal in this society. I just wanted you to speak a little more to what you would advise this committee to do in terms of listening to all people's points of view and how we then take all those views and come to some kind of conclusions about what we are going to recommend and how we approach this whole big issue.
M. Giroux: En 1967, lorsqu'on a créé la Confédération, il n'y avait pas question de référendum; on n'a jamais consulté la population. Des premiers ministres, des politiciens ont décidé à portes fermées qu'on était pour créer la Confédération. On sait que la population, en majorité, était contre l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique tel qu'on le connaît maintenant. Et il n'aurait sûrement pas été sage de demander au grand public de voter, sous forme de référendum, à savoir si on voulait cet arrangement politique, parce que sûrement le référendum aurait rejeté l'idée de la Confédération ; la même chose aujourd'hui. Si jamais on demande au grand public de se prononcer sur les questions francophones qui leur tiennent à coeur, déjà on a une bonne idée du résultat du référendum. Alors je crois qu'il est bon d'écouter tout le monde, toutes les gens qui ont quelque chose à dire, mais il faut que ce soit nos chefs, nos leaders -- et en ce moment-ci je remarque que M. Harris n'est pas ici, c'est dommage -- que nos chefs doivent prendre ces responsabilités parce qu'ils sont les gens supposément éclairés pour bien mener un peuple aussi diversifié qu'est le nôtre. Il ne faudrait pas qu'une majorité puisse, à travers un référendum, écraser des minorités ; et ce autant pour la question des francophones que pour la question des autochtones.
Mme Champagne: Je peux ajouter quelque chose ? Je voudrais aussi dire que, comme Bernard vient de dire, on n'a pas consulté la population lors de la Confédération, mais je pense qu'aujourd'hui vous considérez l'autre aspect de la démocratie, qui veut que vous consultiez la population. Je pense que la commission Silipo est un beau geste en ce genre qui, pour appuyer la démocratie, vient écouter la majorité ou la minorité.
M. le Président: Merci. Vous avez parlé du fait que le discours culturel devait englober, comme vous dites, tous les aspects du peuple canadien: les autochtones, les Français, les Anglais. Si je peux vous poser une question: où est-ce que vous mettez le tiers de la population canadienne qui n'appartient à aucun de ces trois groupes, c'est-à-dire la population multiculturelle, dans cette vision ?
M. Giroux: Nous croyons que multiculturalistes, tous ont une place égale dans notre société. Maintenant, sur le plan linguistique, je me base sur les deux peuples fondateurs du Canada et c'est pourquoi on a mentionné surtout les deux langues officielles, mais sans éliminer ou sans noyer toute autre culture qu'on retrouve au Canada. Au contraire ; toutes les cultures au Canada doivent prendre de l'ampleur. On doit encourager pour que chacun puisse conserver son patrimoine et en faire un meilleur Canada.
M. le Président: Merci. Je vous ai posé la question parce que j'avais l'impression que, basé sur ce que vous avez dit, c'était en effet votre position, mais des fois c'est nécessaire de mettre ces positions clairement devant tout le monde parce qu'il y a peut-être une possibilité de ne pas se comprendre sur ces aspects. Merci.
M. Giroux: Merci bien de nous avoir donné la chance d'exprimer nos opinions.
Mme Champagne: Merci de nous avoir écoutés.
JEAN-LOUIS BOURDEAU
M. le Président: Est-ce que je pourrais appeler maintenant Jean-Louis Bourdeau ?
M. Bourdeau: Monsieur le Président, membres du comité, je voudrais vous souhaiter la bienvenue chez nous. Je suis un Ontarien de cinquième génération. Mon arrière-arrière-grand-père a immigré, s'est établi dans le comté de Russell dans l'est de l'Ontario en 1859. Mes ancêtres ont demeuré là. Cependant, en 1941 alors que j'avais 18 ans, ça fait cinquante ans cette année, moi-même j'ai immigré dans le nord de l'Ontario. J'y ai passé toute ma vie, alors je me sens ici chez moi et ça me fait plaisir de vous souhaiter la bienvenue.
Je voudrais vous présenter ma vision du problème auquel les Canadiens font face présentement et vous proposer certains éléments de solution puisque j'imagine que c'est ce que vous recherchez.
Présentement, la Confédération canadienne éprouve la crise la plus grave de son histoire. Pourquoi la plus grave ? Parce que cette fois-ci les citoyens ne veulent plus s'en remettre au seul chef politique pour régler la question. Ils veulent s'en mêler eux-mêmes. L'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique de 1867 a été le fruit d'un accord entre les chefs d'État du temps, bien connus sous le nom de pères de la Confédération. La population fit confiance à ses chefs politiques et accepta l'accord. Il y a eu d'autres crises constitutionnelles depuis ce temps, mais elles furent toutes traitées au niveau des politiciens. Les Canadiens francophones n'ont jamais été très à l'aise avec la constitution de 1867 qui garantissait certains droits aux anglophones au Québec mais aucun aux francophones des autres provinces.
C'est ce déséquilibre qui était la cause principale des frictions entre les anglophones et les francophones depuis plus de cent ans. Les anglophones devenaient de plus en plus majoritaires, tandis que pour les francophones c'était l'inverse.
Les Québécois, souffrant depuis longtemps du complexe de vaincu -- on ne leur laissait pas oublier la bataille des plaines d'Abraham -- ayant un niveau d'éducation inférieur aux anglophones, défavorisés sur le plan économique, n'arrivaient pas à rétablir l'équilibre. Cette situation a changé du tout au tout depuis la révolution tranquille. Ayant découvert une identité nationale qui leur est propre, les Québécois, maintenant mieux éduqués, ont fondé des institutions financières et sociales qui leur donnent un sentiment d'autonomie. Ils se sentent capables de prendre leur destinée en main. Ils ne se sentent inférieurs dans aucun domaine et ils ont perdu leur complexe de vaincu. Même plus, ils disent carrément à leurs chefs politiques ce qu'ils attendent d'eux en matière de droit constitutionnel.
1430
C'est ce qui fait la gravité de la crise actuelle. Cette fois, il ne suffira pas de satisfaire les élus québécois ; il faudra satisfaire le peuple québécois lui-même. Il y a aussi un autre aspect de la crise actuelle qui n'était pas très évident dans les crises précédentes. Il s'agit de la question des peuples autochtones. Nous l'avons toujours ignorée jusqu'à maintenant, mais cela n'est plus possible. Il faut rendre justice au peuple qui habitait ce territoire avant nous.
Le Canada a une bien drôle d'histoire. Les Français sont arrivés et ils ont bousculé les tribus indiennes. Ils les ont refoulées sur les plus pauvres territoires du pays tandis que les anglophones dans les colonies anglaises, aux États-Unis -- ce qui s'appelle les États-Unis maintenant -- faisaient exactement la même chose. On est aussi coupable l'un que l'autre. Ensuite sont arrivés les anglophones qui se sont emparés du Canada, du Québec par la force des armes et qui ont fait la même chose ensuite aux Français. Alors, ça a été une bousculade par la force des armes.
Je suppose que dans la civilisation du temps, c'était acceptable. Ça se faisait. Aujourd'hui ça ne l'est pas. Notre pays lui-même, le Canada, participe actuellement à une guerre pour déloger un tyrant qui s'est emparé d'un autre pays par la force et on ne peut pas tolérer ça. On y va et on va le sortir.
Ce contrôle d'un peuple par la force n'est plus quelque chose d'acceptable aujourd'hui. Si nous voulons régler la question constitutionnelle de façon définitive cette fois, il ne suffira pas de proposer des changements mineurs ou de demi-mesure. Il faudra changer nos attitudes les uns envers les autres. Il faudra se débarrasser de nos préjugés, de notre soif de dominer et de contrôler les autres communautés.
Il faudra cesser de penser et de parler de groupes majoritaires et de groupes minoritaires mais plutôt de partenaires égaux. Ce ne sont que deux mots, mais là se trouve la solution définitive à nos différends. Si on veut vraiment régler la question une fois pour toutes, il faut en arriver là. Si les francophones jouissaient d'un statut, d'institutions et de services égaux aux anglophones d'un bout à l'autre du pays et si les autochtones étaient maîtres de leur destinée sur leur propre territoire, je verrais un pays paisible et des Canadiens heureux. Un tel projet est-il réalisable ?
Le Québec a déjà fait connaître sa position. Les autochtones ont fait de même avec force ces dernières années. La réponse appartient donc aux anglophones. Présentement, il est difficile de savoir ce qu'ils pensent. Un certain nombre se disent opposés à dialoguer plus longtemps, mais je ne crois pas qu'ils représentent les sentiments de la majorité. Il faut donc absolument que cette majorité se manifeste clairement. Il faudra plus que des mots, il faut des actes clairs et concrets. Veulent-ils, oui ou non, avoir les francophones et les autochtones comme partenaires à part entière dans ce pays ? S'ils n'agissent pas, le Canada se séparera bientôt du Québec. Ça ne serait pas la première fois, d'ailleurs.
Il y a 200 ans que c'est arrivé pour la première fois lorsque le Parlement de Londres a créé la province du Haut-Canada. Ce territoire-ci, déjà c'était le territoire québécois, c'était du territoire français. C'est en 1791 que le Parlement de Londres a divisé le territoire en deux provinces: le Haut- et le bas-Canada, et on a pris une partie du territoire pour créer la province du Haut-Canada qui maintenant s'appelle l'Ontario, et c'était pour accommoder une nouvelle population anglophone qui était à la veille d'y immigrer.
Les conséquences très graves d'une telle séparation nous incitent à une profonde réflexion. Quel est le rôle de l'Ontario dans cette situation ? Notre province est bien placée pour exercer un véritable leadership auprès de la population anglophone du Canada, et là j'inclus les autres provinces auprès de tous les anglophones à travers le pays. L'Ontario a la plus grande population totale et la plus grande population francophone hors Québec. La province a une économie très diversifiée et très dynamique et elle est située en plein centre du pays. C'est aussi la province qui a le plus à perdre dans l'éventualité de l'éclatement de la Confédération canadienne. Elle doit donner l'exemple aux autres provinces.
Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire concrètement ? L'Ontario doit démontrer sa volonté de rehausser les communautés francophones et autochtones au rang de partenaires égaux. Entre autres, elle doit se déclarer officiellement bilingue dans tous les services publiques, tant au niveau provincial que municipal ; elle doit compléter le système d'éducation en français, c'est-à-dire au niveau postsecondaire ; elle doit aider financièrement à l'établissement d'un réseau de garderies francophones. Ce ne sont que quelques exemples que je donne entre autres.
Elle doit changer son visage anglophone en y ajoutant la dimension francophone dans la vie quotidienne des gens. Elle doit prendre tous les moyens possibles pour réduire l'assimilation des francophones de 30% à 0.0%. Enfin, elle doit régler les revendications des autochtones de façon juste, équitable et favorable a la préservation de leurs coutumes et de leur mode de vie. En un mot, il faut que les anglophones cessent de penser que le Canada leur appartient à eux tous seuls et qu'ils démontrent qu'ils sont prêts à le partager avec les deux autres communautés nationales.
Dans l'atteinte de cet objectif, il est clair que les médias joueront un rôle prépondérant. Nous savons tous combien les médias forgent l'opinion publique par les images et l'interprétation qu'ils donnent aux événements et aux paroles. J'ai assez souvent l'occasion d'écouter, par exemple, les nouvelles tantôt en français, tantôt en anglais et parfois dans les deux langues le même jour, et vous n'avez pas idée combien l'impression qui me reste est différente selon que j'écoute une nouvelle, un fait, un événement présenté à la télévision française, et le même événement présenté à la télévision anglaise, et pourtant c'est le même fait, c'est le même événement. C'est qu'on semble avoir un désir de toujours présenter notre point de vue comme étant le bon, celui à retenir.
Il y a aussi l'autre aspect, il y a des nouvelles, vous savez, il y a des événements qui sont présentés à une télévision ou à l'autre, mais pas aux deux. Je vais vous donner un exemple. Il y a quelques années j'ai vu dans un journal de langue française un petit incident qui m'a scandalisé. C'étaient les forces canadiennes de Petawawa qui avaient traversé la rivière puis qui sont allées au Québec faire une expérience avec des explosifs. Et puis ils avaient comme ça vidé complètement, tué tous les poissons dans un lac au Québec. Vous savez, j'ai cherché et je n'ai pas vu un seul médium anglophone répéter cette nouvelle.
1440
C'est le genre de choses qui nous divisent, qui divisent les Canadiens parce qu'on présente des points de vue qui ne sont pas impartiaux, qui ne sont pas justes et qui fomentent et qui nourrissent la division. Le rôle des médias sera très important.
Je termine là-dessus. Vous croyez peut-être que j'ai brossé un bien sombre tableau de la situation, que la solution que je propose n'est pas réaliste. À cela je répondrais que cette fois, le Québec n'est plus dans une situation de faiblesse vis-à-vis de ses partenaires et que si les anglophones veulent garder le haut du pavé, les Québécois leur diront tout simplement: «Non, merci». Et je vous remercie.
M. le Président: Merci à vous. Le temps ne nous permet pas de questions. I should have perhaps mentioned this earlier. We would appreciate having the opportunity of asking questions at the end of the presentation, but because of the time allocated we would therefore ask that people try to limit their presentations to about the 10- or 12-minute mark if you are presenting as an individual and 20 to 25 minutes if you are presenting as part of a group. That will allow us time for questions as well as a bit of time to add speakers who may not have registered with us before. If that is the case, if there are other people who would like to spealc to us, if they make that known to any of the people from our staff who are circulating around the hall, we will do our best to accommodate that.
DAVID CYR
The Chair: I call David Cyr.
M. Cyr: Monsieur le Président, membres du comité, le rôle de l'Ontario dans la survie du Canada:
Le Canada connaît présentement une période critique de son histoire. Depuis le début de la Confédération canadienne, les Canadiens ont toujours su maintenir et améliorer leur niveau de vie, mais ils comprennent que dans un monde marqué par la concurrence, seule la stabilité politique et sociale décidera l'avenir du pays.
Le gouvernement fédéral nous disait que l'accord du Lac Meech marquait le début d'un Canada uni. Une fois en vigueur, le Québec aurait pris sa place au sein de la Confédération canadienne tout en étant une société distincte. Le gouvernement fédéral nous disait aussi qu'il y aurait eu une deuxième ronde de négociations sur le partage des droits, cependant, tout a échoué parce que l'un ou l'autre gouvernement ne s'est pas disposé à faire des compromis. À cause de l'échec du Lac Meech, il sera difficile de négocier une nouvelle entente constitutionnelle qui répondra aux besoins de tous. Le Canadien se demande aujourd'hui s'il existe une solution permanente à ce problème.
Il me semble qu'il est trop tard pour mettre au point une nouvelle entente et en pratique, les Canadiens n'y sont pas prêts. Il faut donc trouver une autre solution avec une approche pleinement satisfaisante.
Pendant que la province du Québec se prépare à un référendum, elle cherchera à faire des ententes bilatéraux avec le gouvernement fédéral. Il est clair que s'opposer et critiquer les exigences du Québec ne s'avère qu'une perte de temps. L'Ontario devra passer à l'action sans aucun doute.
Ceci m'amène à vous expliquer un exemple peu ordinaire. Je vais essayer de vous expliquer la situation du Québec. Au Québec il y a un cercueil et ça fait longtemps qu'il est là. Dans ce cercueil il y a un vampire souverainiste. Ce vampire est une personne dangereuse, vu hors Québec. En 1980, avant que ce vampire ne se fut poignarder par Ottawa, il a eu le temps de passer à 40% de la population. Depuis l'échec du Lac Meech, il y a une personne encore qui est allée voir ce cercueil. On a enlevé ce qui était planté dans le coeur et puis cette personne, ce vampire, s'est transformé en chauve-souris et puis aujourd'hui 64% des Québécois ont une morsure souverainiste. La majorité de ces 64% sont les politiciens, les syndicats et le milieu d'affaires.
Il y a quatre façons desquelles on peut éliminer ce mouvement souverainiste, et la bonne méthode n'a jamais été utilisée. On peut les effrayer, on peut les tirer de l'eau bénite ou on peut leur faire mal, mais ça s'avère une riposte négative. On peut faire la même chose comme on a fait en 1980, leur percer le coeur, d'une façon, mais ceci s'avère aussi une solution temporaire. Par contre, on a tout le temps regardé ces fameux films ; la façon d'éliminer ce vampire est par une source de lumière et puis ce vampire va se désintégrer. Ceci m'amène ici: que l'Ontario peut devenir cette source de lumière.
J'ai mes recommandations ici. Comment renverser le mouvement souverainiste au Québec ? En premier lieu, il est très important de réduire la tension linguistique qui règne dans le pays en déclarant la province de l'Ontario officiellement bilingue. Un coup qui s'est fait, l'Ontario devient une source de lumière pour tous les francophones, pas seulement au Québec, partout dans le monde. L'Ontario ouvre ses portes et prend sa place au sommet de la francophonie, fors j'ai à dire, ouvre ses portes pas seulement encore aux entreprises québécoises, mais partout dans le monde.
Je sais qu'il est très difficile pour les politiciens ici en Ontario de faire face à déclarer la province officiellement bilingue. Vous allez avoir pas mal de pression sur vos épaules. Mais par contre, économiquement, si on sensibilise les compagnies comme on l'a fait au libre-échange -- on demandait aux industries: «Est-ce que vous êtes pour ou vous êtes contre ?» Les résultats étaient publiés dans le Globe and Mail, pour et contre. Est-ce qu'on peut faire la même chose avec le bilinguisme ? Mais si vous faites ça, c'est vrai que les médias vont dire que vous vous servez de boucliers pour faire face à la population
En deuxième lieu, sensibiliser la population économiquement et socialement. Le gouvernement de l'Ontario fait face à la population avec le support du milieu des affaires. La deuxième étape serait de promouvoir l'égalité des droits pour tous les citoyens de l'Ontario. Un point important à ça, c'est que l'Ontario devient une province exemplaire. Je vais vous donner un exemple là-dessus. Depuis la crise d'Oka, la télévision nous a montré beaucoup de documentaires sur nos autochtones et même des films, comme Where the Spirit Lives. Ces documentaires à la télévision ont sensibilisé les gens. Je crois aujourd'hui qu'il y en a de plus en plus qui sympathisent avec les autochtones.
Je me suis toujours demandé la question: le gouvernement fédéral a eu le courage de compenser les Japonais il n'y a pas longtemps, mais est-ce que les politiciens ont le courage de compenser nos autochtones ici au Canada ? Un coup qui s'est fait: l'Ontario est en position d'influencer et motiver les autres provinces. On parle de leadership là, par voie de commission d'étude, etc.
1450
En troisième lieu, inviter les autres provinces à discuter de la réforme constitutionnelle. Le gouvernement de l'Ontario exerce son leadership. Il va falloir que le gouvernement de l'Ontario atteigne une certaine crédibilité avant qu'elle suggère aux autres provinces quoi faire.
Ma conclusion: l'Ontario a un rôle important à la survie du Canada. Parfois le leader devra se sacrifier afin de motiver et d'influencer les autres. Il est donc nécessaire que l'Ontario devienne la province exemplaire.
Je vous ai passé un mémoire, mais maintenant je vous passe mon coeur parce que j'ai devant moi ici un salut au drapeau canadien. Il y a plusieurs d'entre vous qui n'ont pas vu ça, ça n'existe pas encore au Canada et puis je vous ai donné des copies. Moi j'y crois fortement: que la fierté canadienne amène l'unité.
Prenons comme exemple, dans deux, trois ou quatre mois d'ici, quand nos soldats canadiens vont revenir du golfe Persique, préparons-nous à reconnaître de nouveaux héros ici, Canadiens. Quand ces soldats vont défiler dans les rues canadiennes ici, les Canadiens vont ressentir une fierté qu'ils n'ont que rarement sentie auparavant. Si je reviens avant ça, je crois fortement que si les politiciens à vue des Canadiens se sont serrés la main dans plusieurs domaines, quand je parle de serrer la main, ça veut dire les politiciens qui sont dans l'Opposition et ceux-là qui forment le gouvernement. C'est très électrifiant et puis ça montre une fierté.
Mon salut au drapeau du Canadien, et je vous le cite: «À mon drapeau et au pays qu'il représente, je promets respect et fidélité. D'une mer à l'autre, flotte avec fierté et dans tes plis garde-nous toujours unis. Sois pour nous tous un symbôle de l'amour, de la liberté et de la justice. Dieu garde notre drapeau. Dieu protège notre Canada».
C'est tout.
M. le Président: Merci. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ?
Mr Offer: Just one question: During your presentation you spoke about the declaration of Ontario as being bilingual and it seemed that what you were doing was stating that this is a question that should be taken to the people of the province. I think in your submission you spoke about that question being taken through the newspapers as a question. I was wondering if you were talking about a referendum at that time.
M. Cyr: Non, une approche plus facile d'aller chercher un genre de bouclier, si je veux dire. Économiquement, je crois que si l'Ontario ouvre ses portes, même si le Québec se sépare, je crois que l'Ontario inviterait des entreprises francophones du Québec, par exemple la Banque Royale et ainsi de suite. En passant à travers ces compagnies, économiquement -- je ne parle pas du social -- je crois sincèrement qu'avec les résultats que vous allez connaître, si vous parlez peut-être à la chambre de commerce de Toronto, s'ils sont en faveur de ça, il serait plus difficile pour des gens de la population de dire: «Bon, moi je travaille pour cette compagnie-là, et puis cette compagnie-là supporte le bilinguisme». C'est juste pour un genre de méthode de faciliter la tâche d'approcher le public, non pas par un référendum, mais par les étapes que je vous ai mentionnées.
Mais quand je parle de déclarer la province officiellement bilingue, il est sûr qu'il va falloir faire preuve de courage, et puis quand je parle de la deuxième étape, de promouvoir l'égalité de tous les droits des citoyens de l'Ontario, les deux vont ensemble.
L'UNITÉ NIPISSING SECONDAIRE DE L'ASSOCIATION DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS
M. le Président : Si je peux maintenant appeler Michel Beaupré.
M. Beaupré: Bonjour, Monsieur le Président. Je vous souhaite la bienvenue à North Bay ainsi qu'à tous les membres du comité spécial. Il me fait plaisir d'être parmi vous aujourd'hui.
Je suis ici non à titre personnel, quoique j'aimerais souligner, tel que l'a indiqué une personne avant moi, je suis moi aussi un Franco-Ontarien de longue date, de plusieurs générations, et je représente aujourd'hui les enseignants dans les écoles secondaires de North Bay, Mattawa et Sturgeon Falls qui oeuvrent en langue française tel qu'indiqué au début de mon mémoire. Nous sommes environ 110 et nous avons le privilège vraiment d'oeuvrer avec la jeunesse franco-ontarienne.
On se rappelle l'expression y a quelques années: «Touching the Future». La profession d'enseignant est celle où on voit l'avenir devant nous et nous avons le plaisir non seulement d'oeuvrer avec nos chefs de demain, mais de partager avec eux leurs inquiétudes et leur vision d'un Canada futur. En fin de compte, c'est la raison pour laquelle je suis ici aujourd'hui. C'est à cause de mon optimisme personnel. C'est dans ma nature après 20 ans d'enseignement, de toujours demeurer optimiste et aussi d'avoir vu l'idéalisme de nos jeunes Franco-Ontariens dans les écoles secondaires, qui sont tous âgés de 13 à 18 ans, dont plusieurs sont déjà sur le marché de travail et qui eux aussi ont des inquiétudes et des aspirations face à la réalité ontarienne et à la crise constitutionnelle d'aujourd'hui.
Si vous permettez, je vais me référer à la deuxième page de mon bref, où j'indique que la crise d'identité du Franco-Ontarien est de longue date. Certains de mes prédécesseurs ici aujourd'hui y ont fait allusion. Évidement les jeunes en pleine adolescence vivent déjà une crise d'identité au niveau personnel, au niveau familial, au niveau de leur école et de leur travail. Je me pose la question: qu'est-ce qu'un francophone dans l'Ontario de 1991 ? L'éducateur qui se dit francophone et qui vit cette réalité pluraliste qui est l'Ontario d'aujourd'hui, peut-il identifier sa population étudiante et peut-il s'identifier lui-même aux espoirs dans l'avenir que cette jeunesse représente ?
Il m'est venu l'idée de résumer des termes par lesquels le Franco-Ontarien s'identifie, et j'ai fait un résumé très bref ici de la conquête et certains ont fait référence à ça tout à l'heure. Ils sont plus connaissants en histoire et plus sages que moi à ce niveau. À la conquête, on s'appelait les Canadiens, on était un Canadien. À l'union des deux Canada en 1840 ainsi qu'à la Confédération en 1867 nous sommes devenus Canadiens français. En 1967, lors du centenaire, et on vivait à ce moment-là aussi une crise qui a culminée dans la crise d'octobre 70, nous sommes devenus des francophones hors Québec, un nouveau terme avec une nouvelle dimension. On se définissait par rapport au fait qu'on était à l'extérieur du Québec. En 1975 nous avons eu le drapeau franco-ontarien. En 1976 et l'élection du Parti québécois au Québec, nous sommes devenus Franco-Ontariens officiellement avec un drapeau pour le prouver. En 1986, avec l'adoption de la Loi 8, nous sommes devenus Ontarois.
Donc, la question que je me pose, et certains jeunes dans nos écoles se posent la même question: quelle est la définition concluante de ce que c'est qu'un Franco-Ontarien ? Nous avons tous vécu des déchirements personnels, des situations familiales où un membre de la famille ne peut plus converser en langue française. Cette personne est encore très proche de nous mais n'a plus la langue maternelle ni la facilité de s'exprimer dans cette langue.
1500
Comme enseignants nous avons un double mandat. Nous avons le mandat non seulement d'écouter ce que les jeunes ont à dire, mais aussi de leur aider à avoir un modèle positif pour l'avenir. La citation que j'ai ici au bas de la page 2 de mon mémoire:
« L'on enseigne pas ce que l'on sait ou ce que l'on croit savoir: on n'enseigne et on ne peut enseigner que ce que l'on est».
Si vous permettez, je vais sauter la troisième page qui est une référence à des statistiques que vous connaissez sans doute déjà sur les réalités franco-ontariennes dans le district de Nipissing. Le point intéressant au bas de cette page quand même est que la population francophone de Nipissing est répartie de façon très inégale. Sachant que je représente les enseignants dans les écoles des trois différentes communautés qui sont aussi les trois principales communautés urbaines de la région de Nipissing, il est bon de remarquer qu'à North Bay, la population francophone représente 14,8 % de la population globale, tandis qu'à Sturgeon Falls ce pourcentage francophone est d'environ 72 % et à Mattawa le même pourcentage baisse à 47 %.
Le seul fait remarquable, en plus du fait que ces pourcentages sont plus élevés que les moyennes en province, c'est qu'il y a seulement un médium de communication francophone dans toute la région et c'est un hebdomadaire bilingue à Sturgeon Falls. Voilà les réalités avec lesquelles nos jeunes ont à communiquer lorsqu'ils veulent se parler l'un à l'autre.
Je fais référence ensuite à l'assimilation ou l'intégration. Il y a un excellent volume qui a été publié en 1990 qui fait une étude scientifique et sociologique des aspirations des jeunes Franco-Ontariens. Cette étude, qui est citée ici, s'appelle l'Ambition démesurée, «ambition» parce que tous nos jeunes, de toute langue et de toute nationalité, ici en Ontario partagent des aspirations semblables ; «démesurée» parce que dans le cas du jeune Franco-Ontarien, il n'a pas toujours les outils ni la facilité pour oeuvrer dans sa langue maternelle à tous les niveaux. J'indique ici une citation. «L'étudiant et l'étudiante apprennent que leur monde est anglais et reproduisent cet apprentissage ; 67,3 % d'entre eux estiment, à un degré ou à un autre, que "le français est une langue qu'on parle principalement à la maison". La vie, partout en dehors du foyer, pour un nombre important de personnel, a perdu sa dimension francophone. »
J'oserais dire que ceci représente une réalité non seulement dans le nord-est de l'Ontario, où l'étude a été principalement faite, mais de même pour d'autres secteurs de la province.
William Davis a mentionné en 1968 que fondamentalement, la préservation d'une langue et d'une culture se fait par le système d'éducation. En tant qu'éducateurs, nous avons encore là un rôle important à jouer.
Je fais ensuite référence au fait que comme Franco-Ontariens, nous avons, c'est vrai, certains droits collectifs, que l'Assemblée législative a cru bon en 1986 d'indiquer sous la forme de la Loi 8, qui a connu par après certaines difficultés en province. La difficulté principale que je voyais là-dedans, c'était le fait que dans notre système de droit et certainement dans la jurisprudence anglaise on voit qu'il y a une priorité toute spéciale accordée aux libertés individuelles. Moi, j'en suis un qui crois fermement à ces libertés.
Par ailleurs, nous comme francophones espérons avoir des services ainsi que des possibilités d'oeuvrer dans notre langue et des garantis, par le législateur, que ces services nous seront non seulement accessibles, mais sur une base d'égalité. Maintenant, l'égalité pour un groupe minoritaire peut vouloir dire complètement un autre concept que l'égalité dans la jurisprudence ou pour le législateur parce qu'on regarde à ce moment-là des formes d'action positive.
La législation permet d'aller de l'avant et d'encourager certains groupes qui ont été désavantagés dans le passé d'obtenir des services du gouvernement qui n'étaient pas accessibles à eux auparavant. Un des meilleurs exemples de ça est l'article 15 de la Charte des droits et libertés de 1982.
En somme, ce que j'essaie de dire ici est que le Franco-Ontarien est très respectueux des libertés individuelles mais veut à la fois des garanties juridiques que seul un Parlement ou une Assemblée législative peut lui donner. Les protections collectives que nous avons à l'article 3 de la Charte des droits sont un excellent exemple du mariage des deux concepts: la liberté individuelle ainsi que la gestion de nos écoles de langue française partout en province.
La dernière page, avant les recommandations, fait simplement souligner un fait qui a été mentionné par plusieurs ici aujourd'hui, que l'Ontario a toujours été dans une position privilégiée pour entretenir une dualité linguistique, pour reconnaître aussi ses liens économiques avec le Québec qui sont à la base de l'Acte d'Union de 1840 ainsi que la Confédération, et qui a mené après 1867 à l'annexation des régions économiques tributaires.
La question posée tout à l'heure et que je répète ici: quel genre de partenariat l'Ontario est-il prêt à négocier avec le Québec et où se situent les minorités franco-ontariennes dans cet échiquier politique ? Quelles garanties auront les minorités dans les provinces si le pouvoir central du Parlement est restreint par des concessions aux intérêts régionaux ?
Donc, à la fin, j'ai quatre recommandations auxquelles j'aimerais faire allusion rapidement:
1. Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario assure la promotion de la tolérance et du respect des minorités raciales, culturelles et linguistiques par l'entremise de programmes d'éducation à tous les paliers d'enseignent et d'en assurer le financement ;
2. Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario continue d'assurer un plus grand accès, aux minorités linguistiques de l Ontario et en particulier à la minorité francophone, à tous les services gouvernementaux subventionnés par la province. J'ose ajouter que ceci inclut des services municipaux ;
3. Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario facilite la mise sur pied d'institutions scolaires gérées par et pour les francophones à tous les niveaux d'éducation tout en assurant une base équitable de ressources nécessaires à leur viabilité ;
4. Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario considère les avantages de créer un organisme permanent de consultation avec ses citoyens qui aurait comme mandat de circuler en province, ainsi que de faire rapport à l'Assemblée législative sur la mise en vigueur des recommandations des comités spéciaux et des commissions ad hoc.
En d'autres mots, je veux vous garantir un emploi pour un certain temps à venir, mais surtout m'assurer que la consultation soit réelle. Je vous en remercie parce que je crois que c'est un exercice très important dans une démocratie que vous, les membres de l'Assemblée législative, nous donnez l'occasion de partager nos inquiétudes avec vous ; surtout, et la recommandation 4 le vise, que vous soyez prêts à écouter et à agir sur ces recommandations. Je vous en remercie.
M. le Président: Merci à vous, Monsieur Beaupré. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ? Any questions?
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Merci, Monsieur Beaupré. I am very impressed with your brief. We have had very few educators come before us, and certainly a secondary school teacher operating and coming before us in an official way does have a significance. I want to ask you, first of all, if you have looked at Changement et renouveau, this document, as a fédération-association or with your students?
M. Beaupré: Oui, je peux vous répondre. J'ai reçu une copie il y a deux jours, mais je n'ai pas eu l'occasion de la lire, en toute sincérité.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am very impressed with the way in which you talk in your brief about your students, your role with students, their idealism and their being the inheritors of what we are going to be doing now. I am intrigued by your last recommendation. I also had never seen the chronology of the labels that francophones in Ontario have had to absorb and I do think there is something significant about that unfolding.
1510
I am very, very happy with the sensitivity with which you describe a teacher, and what a teacher is is what a teacher teaches. You very seldom hear this, certainly from a formal group such as yours. I really do hope, in your unique position in this part of the province and the unique position you have with students and young people, that you will take the document and encourage the 110 teachers, or some of them at least, to respond through their classes or themselves to us, because that would be the beginning of your fourth recommendation taking place in its often-called multiplier capacity.
The Chair: I certainly echo that suggestion, Mrs O'Neill.
Mr Harnick: Sir, in your opinion, is Bill 8 an adequate protection for the preservation of the French language and culture? Can Bill 8 be improved upon, or should Ontario be moving towards official bilingualism?
M. Beaupré: Oui, je crois que seulement une pièce de législation, c'est-à-dire la Loi 8 par elle-même, ne suffirait pas à répondre à toutes les attentes des Franco-Ontariens. Il n'y a pas de doute que la Loi 8 aurait pu être améliorée autant dans son contenu que dans sa présentation au public de l'Ontario et à l'explication qui aurait pu être donnée sur la rationale pour cette législation. Mais je crois qu'essentiellement le Franco-Ontarien ne s'attend pas à une solution miracle. On ne peut pas espérer qu'une législation quelconque réponde à tous nos besoins. J'ose espérer que les membres du comité pourront étudier la possibilité d'améliorer la Loi 8, d'en expliquer certainement le contenu à toutes les régions de la province où la Loi 8 est en vigueur, c'est-à-dire les régions désignées et d'assurer, par ailleurs, qu'il y a vraiment une consultation sur les besoins d'améliorer la Loi 8 là où l'Assemblée législative le croit nécessaire. J'espère avoir répondu à votre question.
BERNARD M. WATSON
The Chair: I call next Bernard Watson.
Mr Watson: First of all, as the people have done before me, I would like to thank the committee for giving individuals as well as organizations the chance to express their opinions. I should warn you that I am waging the mother of all battles with the flu. If my voice starts to crack, it is not due to puberty; it is simply the flu. You can thank my students for that. They told me that all day.
Bon anglophone né de mère irlandaise et de père anglais, j'ai pourtant décidé de faire cette présentation en français pour deux raisons majeures.
Dans un premier temps, je voulais que les membres de la commission constatent que les propos francophones que vous avez eu à entendre et que vous aurez peut-être à entendre encore lors de vos audiences publiques ne représentent à mon avis en rien la majorité silencieuse des anglos en Ontario, qu'il existe dans la province bon nombre de citoyens anglos qui sont fort sympathiques au dilemme des Franco-Ontariens.
Deuxièmement, je voulais témoigner que plus on côtoie une ethnie qui n'est pas la nôtre -- comme je le fais dans mon emploi depuis plusieurs années--plus on risque d'apprécier leur culture et comprendre leurs aspirations, leurs problèmes. Je ne vous révèle rien de nouveau en vous affirmant que le Canada que nous avons connu jusqu'à présent est bel et bien mort. Pour beaucoup de gens c'est une triste réalité que la structure politique de notre nation doive subir des changements majeurs et que chaque province devra faire des choix assez pénibles.
Sans doute, une des tâches les plus onéreuses du comité sera de faire constater à la population ontarienne que le statu quo, si réconfortant soit-il, n'est plus viable. Espérons que le message sera clair. Acceptons la nouvelle réalité ou plutôt modelons cette nouvelle réalité de façon à ce qu'elle assure un avenir et non seulement des regrets pour le passé. Depuis plus de 100 ans, l'Ontario joue un rôle majeur lors des débats nationaux. Pensons entre autres au colloque Confederation of Tomorrow de John Robarts dans les années 60, au rôle de M. Peterson lors des conférences sur l'entente du Lac Meech. Il faudrait que le gouvernement ne rate pas une nouvelle occasion d'exercer son leadership an niveau national et que nos propos constituent un modèle pour le reste du pays. Mais qu'est-ce qu'on doit envisager pour un Canada nouveau, pour un Canada de l'avenir ?
Je vous propose un concept souvent décrit dans le passé par d'autres et je ne me rendais pas compte à quel point ce serait souvent décrit, j'ai l'impression que c'est tout simplement un pâle écho de ce que d'autres ont dit très éloquemment. Mais ça me paraît réalisable quand même, pourvu que la bonne foi y règne. Ce pays idéal, ce serait un endroit où le respect des regroupements linguistiques ne dépendrait plus de la bonne volonté de la population ou d'un parti politique, mais serait plutôt enchâssée dans une constitution et sans possibilité d'abrogation. Avouons que c'est loin d'être de ce que nous avons actuellement.
Au Québec, les anglophones doivent tolérer une loi à mon avis humiliante qui limite officiellement l'usage de leur langue. En Ontario, les francophones doivent quotidiennement affronter des attitudes hostiles de groupes de pression antédiluviens, qui exigent soit l'assimilation totale des francos ou bien la réduction du français, un élément purement folklorique de la province. Ils ne semblent comprendre en rien que la francophonie est un élément fondateur de notre province, ne réclame pas de privilèges, mais plutôt des droits qui lui sont moralement dus.
Je devrais aussi faire une parenthèse ici et mentionner que, avec la Loi 8, il y a certains droits qui sont acquis. Il faudrait peut-être faire un effort pour assurer que ces droits soient respectés au sein des services du gouvernement. Il me semble qu'en insistant que les droits linguistiques soient enchâssés dans une constitution réformée, en déclarant en Ontario que ces droits ne peuvent pas être abrogés, l'Ontario servirait de modèle pour les autres et contribuerait à l'établissement d'une sécurité sociale pour sa minorité.
La justice, cependant, doit être offerte à tous. II y a un élément de notre société à qui les gouvernements et la population ont nié justice depuis bien trop longtemps. Il s'agit bien sûr des autochtones, un peu par négligence, un peu inconsciemment mais probablement sans mauvaises intentions.
Nous avons mis au rancart des revendications légitimes des premiers citoyens de notre nation et de notre province. Nous avons eu à vivre une crise Oka pour nous sensibiliser à leurs problèmes et pour que leur cause soit popularisée. Dans une nouvelle société ontarienne, il faudrait lui faire la place qui lui revient en respectant ses droits territoriaux. De plus, il faudra assurer un respect de leurs aspirations culturelles en leur fournissant l'autonomie nécessaire au développement des instruments propices à l'épanouissement de leurs traditions. Il me semble que toute mesure inférieure à ceci constituerait un rejet de revendications.
Parce que nous avons la maturité politique pour poser de tels gestes malgré les grognements des dinosaures qui se sont fait entendre l'an passé après l'adoption de la Loi 8, malgré les discours colériques que vous pourrez peut-être entendre, je crois que la vaste majorité des Ontariens est prête à relever le défi, de créer un avenir plus juste où les peuples fondateurs pourront se rencontrer d'égal en égal et se respecter. Pour ce faire, cependant, il faudrait détruire certains mythes qui créent des obstacles à une saine relation entre les peuples fondateurs.
Comme premier mythe nous entendons souvent: « Le français coûte trop cher ». Les partisans de cette doctrine me paraissent quelque peu inconstants dans le raisonnement. Il y a un an de telles personnes réclamaient la restauration du service de Via Rail, affirmant avec raison que c'était un facteur qui unifiait le pays même si ce n'était pas économiquement profitable. Il y a trois mois, de telles personnes exigeaient la réouverture des postes de télévision du CBC à partout au Canada en insistant encore une fois que la télévision était importante pour l'unité nationale, même si ça coûtait très cher. Encore une fois, cette logique me paraît impeccable.
Je leur donne raison en ceci: même si certaines choses ne sont pas économiquement rentables, elles en valent la peine pour le bien du pays. Je souhaiterais donc que ce même argument s'applique au respect des droits linguistiques en Ontario. Il y a un prix financier à payer pour maintenir l'unité de notre pays. Si Via Rail et le CBC en valent la peine, combien plus ça vaut la peine de contribuer à unifier une nation en assurant le droit de ses minorités.
1520
Un deuxième mythe: pour avoir un emploi, il faut être francophone ou du moins bilingue. Il suffit de demander un service en français à n'importe quel bureau des gouvernements fédéral ou provincial pour constater qu'une telle affirmation est absolument fausse. Dans la majorité de ces endroits, on est bien chanceux de pouvoir communiquer en français avec plus d'un employé.
D'ailleurs, quel gouvernement serait assez sot pour léser les droits de la majorité pour satisfaire à sa minorité ? En général, les politiciens n'ont pas de tendances suicidaires.
Mythe numéro trois: on veut forcer tout le monde à parler français. Ce dernier mythe repose sur une théorie de conspiration et veut que le gouvernement ait un agenda caché pour transformer tous les citoyens en petite Montréalais ou Parisiens, fumeurs de Gauloises, coiffés de bérets. Comment contrecarrer de telles affirmations ? Peut-être que le meilleur argument est de démontrer que ce sont plutôt les francophones qui ont tendance à être forcés à parler l'anglais et à perdre leur culture plutôt que vice versa. Les études démographiques portant sur l'assimilation des Franco-Ontariens, à Nipissing entre autres, en constituent une triste preuve.
La structure politique et sociale du Canada actuelle, si rassurante soit-elle, est appelée à changer. Il faudrait que l'Ontario se prononce clairement pour assurer que le pays reste tout de même uni. Un facteur qui contribuerait à un Canada plus stable serait une déclaration ferme et qui garantirait aux minorités linguistiques leurs droits de façon inaltérable.
Il est évident que certains citoyens s'y opposeraient par désir de conserver le statu quo, mais à la longue je suis convaincu que le respect mutuel pour les droits des peuples fondateurs est la clé à la survivance de notre nation. Je vous remercie. Amen.
M. le Président: Merci. Il y a des questions ?
M. Bisson: Oui. Dans votre mémoire, vous avez fait un commentaire que j'ai trouvé un peu intéressant. Il y a pas de numéro sur les pages, je pense que c'est à la deuxième page. Où est-ce que j'ai vu ça ? Excusez-moi, je suis à la mauvaise page.
M. Watson: C'est pas grave.
M. Bisson: Il faut que je me retrouve. Donnez-moi une seconde. Vous avez dit que, si je me rappelle de la manière que je l'avais lu, on ne peut pas laisser le droit des citoyens au goodwill du monde. On a besoin de faire des lois pour protéger. Voulez-vous expliquer ça un peu plus, s'il vous plaît ?
M. Watson: Oui. Je dois vous dire que je viens d'Ottawa et puis quand je demeurais à Ottawa, je trouvais que les francophones étaient plutôt, excusez l'expression, presque paranoîaques, dans le sens qu'ils avaient la vie dure. C'est seulement quand je suis arrivé à North Bay où ils sont une vraie minorité que j'ai constaté qu'ils n'ont pas la vie si facile que ça. Si je peux vous donner un exemple, M. Beer, peut-être, serait au courant. Il avait reçu des communications à cet égard.
Un des mes élèves -- puisque je suis professeur -- est allé passer son test pour son permis de conduire. Il a essayé de le faire en français. On lui a répondu, «Non, non, tu ne peux pas le passer en français». Il a insisté une deuxième fois, mais on lui a dit: «Non, absolument, tu ne peux pas le passer en français. Tu va échouer si tu le passes en français».
Finalement, ce pauvre bonhomme-là était assujetti à la bonne volonté des personnel qui étaient là. Dans un deuxième temps, j'entends par ça aussi qu'une loi politique peut tout simplement être abrogée. Ce que je prône, c'est une loi où il n'y aura pas de clause « nonobstant», pas de notwithstanding clause. Que ce soit enchâssé dans une constitution et qu'on dise que c'est un droit, pas un privilège, on ne peut pas vous l'enlever.
M. Beer: Merci pour la présentation que vous venez de nous faire. Je pense que ça peut être intéressant pour nous autres si vous pouviez nous décrire comment vous voyez les relations entre francophones de ce temps-ci dans cette région. On nous parle des fois des problèmes causés soit par la Loi 8 ou simplement des questions de bilinguisme. Est-ce que vous pensez que, avec toute cette discussion durant trois, quatre, cinq dernières années, les deux groupes s'entendent mieux ? Est-ce qu'il y a plus de tension ? Qu'est-ce que vous pensez ?
M. Watson: C'est une question intéressante. J'ai la chance de côtoyer mon ethnic, qui est l'anglais, aussi le regroupement français. Chez la communauté francophone, évidemment elle a été très contente avec la Loi 8. Du côté anglophone, c'est un peu bizarre, il y a eu un ajustement à faire. Je comprends l'ajustement parce que je suis une personne de nature très conservatrice, pas nécessairement dans le sens politique, mais dans le sens travail. Mais dans ma famille, entre autres, où on trouvait la Loi 8 un peu dure, c'est question plus ou moins acceptée. Puis je veux pas insulter ma génération à moi non plus, mais il y a quelque chose de bizarre là-dedans. C'est que plus on parle à la jeunesse, plus on se rend compte que: «It's no big deal», alors que chez les aînés c'est moins facile. Je suis le plus jeune de la famille et je trouve tout ça naturel ; avec mes frères et mes soeurs ou certains d'entre eux, c'est tout un renversement pour eux et j'ose croire que ça se reflète dans la société. La jeunesse l'accepte très facilement.
M. Winninger: Vous avez dit qu'en général les politiciens n'ont pas de tendances suicidaires. Jo crois que, si on n'aura pas de succès avec cet exercice constitutionnel, peut-être que les tendances suicidaires augmenteront.
M. Watson: En effet, vous êtes assuré qu'en écoutant tout le monde, ce n'est pas le suicide politique, c'est un atout de votre côté.
RON LAMB
The Chair: I will call next Ron Lamb.
Mr Lamb: I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to hear from single Ontarians. I may be of a dissenting belief from some of the people who spoke before me, but I feel it is also necessary for the committee to hear where 26% of Canadians are coming from.
I am going to talk along the idea of the eight areas that you are questioning, and the first is, what are the values we share as Canadians?
We believe the government is elected by the people, for the people and of the people. We believe that all people are entitled to their own religion, culture, language and the pursuit of their own monetary wellbeing at their labour's earn. We believe in the care of the less fortunate, the seniors and the oppressed. We believe that all are equal: men, women and children. We believe that we do not want to poison the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We believe in our justice system, that all are equal, and in the right to a fair hearing from our peers.
Increasingly, what we are seeing is government at all levels doing what it thinks is best for the people instead of what the people tell the government to do. Examples are as follows: Mr Peterson giving up Ontario Senate seats without having a mandate to even propose such a negotiating chip from the people who elected him to Queen's Park; the free trade deal with Mexico that would have to be signed before the present federal government has to go to the people to get a mandate; the involvement of offensive weapons in the Gulf war, which Mr Mulroney does not have a mandate from the Canadians to be involved in. This is increasingly more embarrassing to us as we travel throughout the world. The people we have met have always considered Canadians as peacekeepers and peacemakers. We should have only sent hospitals and medical personnel to the war zone on humanitarian grounds.
As an aside, this morning I was watching Newsworld and there were a thousand people killed by one bomb in a bomb shelter. Those thousand people were young women and young children. We as Canadians value our politicians only as long as the politicians do as directed by our democratic system. Please, no more hidden agendas.
1530
How can we secure our future in an international economy? We can secure our future in an international economy by being more creative in the sciences, physics, mathematics and electronic engineering. Also, we have to develop good marketing skills and products created in extremely tight quality control requirements. We can secure our future in an international economy by being competitively priced, by being efficient and by developing our own huge natural resources.
We can secure our future in an international economy by not tying the hands of our manufacturers by insisting that in our own markets every product has to be in two languages. The increased costs for research, production and quality control place tremendous burdens on our manufacturers, which does not leave sufficient leverage on the bottom line to increase expenditures in research and development. All one has to do is look at the Japanese market to learn one very important fact: the Japanese do not require the manufacturers to label all products in two languages for their home market. Let the marketplace decide which products have to be labelled in what languages.
What role should the federal and provincial governments play? The federal government should be making contacts at the first level of trade such as Ottawa-Moscow, Ottawa-Peking, Ottawa-Paris. The provincial government should be making contacts between Queen's Park and the Po Valley region of Italy, or Queen's Park and Lithuania. Both the federal and provincial governments should then allow the business sectors to make contacts on a business-to-business basis.
With increased markets opening and new products entering these markets, the provincial government should be bringing the educational training levels up beyond any we have seen to this point. We have to have a better-funded apprenticeship system.
One point we cannot make too strongly is that the provincial government has to stop allowing our agricultural lands to be paved, concreted and grassed over. In Canada, we do not have enough agricultural land to truck-farm, grow apples, pears and like crops, and they allow the rape of our farm land to continue. Above all things, we have to be able to feed ourselves. Increasingly, we are becoming dependent on offshore imports.
The areas that could be developed for manufacturing, homes for employees to live in, plants to build products for sale, are experiencing high unemployment levels and low wages. Provincial governments have to take the lead in developing land that will allow manufacturers to put plants in outlying areas. The Golden Horseshoe is just about big enough.
How do we achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples? We achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples by giving these people self-government after giving them the tools and knowledge to be successful. This requires the withdrawal of the bureaucracy from the day-today running of programs and allowing the aboriginal peoples to take over. The lands the aboriginal people own which there are no treaties signed for remain for ever the property of the aboriginal peoples.
What are the roles of the English and French languages in Canada? In any democracy, the representation of any ethnic part of that democracy is reflected in the percentage that ethnic part is of the whole. Twenty-six or an even higher percentage of Canadians do not believe in bilingualism. Francophones represent 33% of the population of Canada; 25% of the francophone population lives in Quebec. That leaves 6%-8% of the francophone population living in other areas of Canada, yet the present situation as it stands is that 33% of the total population represents 50% of the total resources of Canadian printing, manufacturing, immersion schools, pupils taking French in schools, in the other 67% of the country. It is an idealistic Walden Two to believe that we as a country can continue to afford the luxury of bilingualism in this country from sea to sea to sea.
We are, at the federal level, a bankrupt country. We have to start paring down Quebec's dream of a new France. The business of war -- right now in the Gulf, they are speaking English when they fight the war. Airline industry: traffic controllers, worldwide, English; you can fly into Peking. Shipping laws, British shipping laws are in English. Most of the financial sectors, on a world scale, use English as a common working language.
Students in China, a billion plus; India, 750 million getting on to a billion; Russia, closing in on 300 million; our new one -- we should all start learning how to speak Spanish from the looks of it -- is Mexico, getting between 65 million and 85 million. They all have English as a second language taught in their places of learning. The above are only a few of the countries worldwide that teach English as a second language.
What is Quebec's future in Canada? We as a society believe that if the quebecois stay on the course they are following, there is no future for Quebec in Canada. Even under the present demands from the committee in Quebec, the province of Quebec ceases to exist and the country of Quebec emerges.
We in the rest of Canada, the other 70% of Canadians, have been accused of not understanding Quebec's wants and needs. We believe we do understand what Quebec wants, that is, Quebec wants to be become as free as an adolescent child, would like to attain self-direction but have the parents pay for the rent, use their currency, and entice some of the brightest siblings with them.
We also believe that Quebec should leave Canada as quickly and as quietly as possible. This may sound like tough love, but sometimes we feel that is necessary. The FLQ tried to tell us a long time ago, and as an angry parent we quashed the hopes of this young baby. Now the baby has became a young adult, and it is time for it to try its freedom on its own.
We also strongly believe that when this happens, Quebec should be treated as any other foreign country. For example, citizens from the country of Quebec would require a passport to travel to other areas of Canada. Citizens from Quebec would have to float their own currency and central banking system, without Canadian participation. Quebec would be responsible for its own defense internally and externally. All Quebec citizens would be required to obtain a work permit to secure employment in the rest of Canada, as other Canadians are required now to work in Quebec. Quebec would leave Canada with the same provincial boundaries it came into Confederation with.
What is the place of the west, north and Atlantic region? The place of western Canada is that each western province has equal representation in the running of Canada as Ontario. The place of the north in Canada is that the Yukon becomes a province, the Northwest Territories become four provinces, and we start to develop these areas now. The place of the Atlantic region in Canada is that it joins in a regional financial understanding, and the equalization payments that were going to Quebec would go to these provinces to help their development. Also, each province in the Atlantic group region would become an equal partner in Confederation. As the west is equal to Ontario, the east is equal to the west.
What does Ontario want? We believe Ontario wants an end to spending on bilingualism, multiculturalism and overtaxing. We propose that with the savings introduced by ending provincial funding to bilingualism and multiculturalism there would be funding free to help with getting the homeless homes, jobs and affordable housing, an end to food banks and food kitchens, a reduced cost of living with the lowering of taxes so people have money to spend on goods and services so full employment is attained.
1540
The other things people in Ontario would like to see: that the Prime Minister of Canada be a born Canadian; that the Senate be elected and equal to the powers of the Commons; that there be a mechanism placed in the Constitution for the impeachment of the Prime Minister, cabinet and premiers; that all votes in both Houses at the federal hovel and also all votes in the provincial governments be free votes. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lamb. There are a couple of questions. We may not be able to get through them all, but we will try.
Mr Harnick: You have provided us with a very comprehensive plan for the future, but you have neglected one very significant aspect: What would happen to the $30-billion worth of trade that takes place annually between Quebec and Ontario? When that trade is lost, where will it be made up? Where will the people whose jobs are lost find work? That is going to be a significant dent in the economy of Ontario. Why have you not provided for that?
Mr Lamb: If you notice, I did not say we curtail trade.
Mr Harnick: So you want to do everything else, put up all these barriers, but you think the trade will just continue. It is that simple, I gather.
Mr Lamb: No. I think you have to look at it from this point: we have that situation, really, with free trade and the rest of it with the United States in a lot of ways. Right now, I do not have a feeling that we would put trade barriers up against Quebec. Whether the new country of Quebec would want that is up to itself. It is a two-way street.
Mr Harnick: Do you not think that the cost of whatever we pay for bilingualism and respecting another culture is a small price to pay when you consider that you are putting $30-billion worth of annual business in jeopardy? Do you not think that one more than offsets the other?
Mr Lamb: I think you think the way most do in that. I think dollars will find their own way across whatever borders. There are no borders for a dollar. If somebody is going to make money in Ontario, he will make the money regardless of the culture. If somebody wants to make money in Quebec, regardless of the culture of Quebec, he is going to make money. We see that with Bombardier. We buy light transit from Bombardier, or even in Taiwan and other places in the world. I do not think it is because they are French that they are buying those Bombardier systems.
Mr Harnick: You have not answered my question.
Mr Lamb: I believe I have.
The Chair: Let's leave it at that. Mr Beer, a quick question, and a quick answer, please.
Mr Beer: One of the points I sensed in your whole presentation was how the political process functions and how it responds to what, in your view, would be perhaps certain approaches you think governments, be they provincial or federal, have not followed. I think there is a feeling out there -- it has come forward in a number of presentations -- about: What changes do we make to the political system?
Let me give you a specific example, and if you would respond. I have now gone through two provincial elections and in each of those the question of bilingualism in Bill 8, while not a major issue, none the less was there. And in each of those elections, in 1987 and 1990, not just in my own party but other members of the Legislature, those who have returned have supported the principle of that bill.
When I try to determine what it is that people think or how I as a legislator should act, it seems to me that I can look at that issue and say there are people who do not like the bilingualism program but there would appear to be a sense throughout the province that in principle -- we are not talking here about exactly how it is administered because there can be mistakes made there -- in principle people approve.
Is it your sense that somehow there are issues now where the every three or four years we have elections -- some of us, perhaps, would prefer the four-year phase -- is not sufficient to determine what it is that people want or how we as legislators interact with electors? Because it seems to me that we have a real problem here; you are not going to elect somebody who just pushes a button after taking a poll in his riding, but you want an elected person to be thinking and trying to weigh and bring some sort of reason. It seems to me that at the base of a lot of the concerns out there today is this link, and I would be interested in your thoughts on that.
Mr Lamb: It sounds like I am down on you all. In a lot of cases people are doing a fine job. I really do admire you. I know it is long hours and hard work and not a lot of thanks. Where I would like to see the situation -- I think Mr Eves spoke to it earlier -- is that if we are going to have bilingualism, let's have a referendum. I do not think it is something you as legislators can answer, I really do not. I think you are getting mixed -- I can load a committee room too. I could load one of the rooms where you are giving an election speech.
I understand where those people are coming from, but I think something as serious as that -- I was in the manufacturing field, and I kept wondering. Something as little as a bottle of Aspirin -- that is in your backyard; I live in your backyard -- in manufacturing a bottle of Aspirin the costs were 32% more in Canada just for the case because of the double printing, the double labelling; 32% more represented that cost. In our case, because it has to be so precise, being a medication, it has to be right on. You cannot have a smear on it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lamb.
C. J. TOYE
Mr Toye: I am speaking as an ordinary citizen, not representing anyone. As far as I am concerned, you are catering more to Quebec. We are entirely wrong. We have been flogging a dead horse for 45 years. They have marched to a different drummer from the rest of Canada in all that time, and no matter what we offer them today they are going to ask for something different tomorrow. I think we had just as well let them go and give them our best wishes That is about all I have to say.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Have you been to Ottawa lately, or have you ever lived in what we call the nation's capital?
Mr Toye: No. I was born there, but I have never lived there.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I have a great deal of difficulty with the thought that there are not natural ties with the real people. I know what you say about the politics, because the politics in some cases has been very difficult. That is one of the difficulties I am having with some of the messages I am getting out of Quebec right now. I think it is politics; I do not think a lot of it is some people's lives.
I live and represent one of the ridings in Ottawa, and when I hear the phrases, "Let them go," or, "We need a passport," I think about the 50,000 people who cross those bridges every day, and I think about the kinds of co-operative efforts we are getting in the community I represent, the kind of natural behaviour that goes on with such things as Via Rail and Rapidair, which travel this boundary two, three, four times a day and in some cases once every hour.
So I personally have a lot of difficulty when you say that the people I live with and with whom I celebrated Winterlude last Friday night are marching to a different drummer, because we were all together. Winterlude, which is our celebration of winter, is celebrated on both sides of the river, and it is truly a celebration. I really hope we will hear - as you know, we are trying not to be reactive to Quebec; we are trying to be proactive on this committee. At this point we have not even got the real recommendations of the Liberal Party, nor do we have the recommendations of the other committee. At this point we have not even got the real recommendations of the Liberal Party, nor do we have the recommendations of the other committee.
So I think we should try and be 1991. I think we all realize we are at some kind of very serious decision point, but I hope that you will try and have a little bit more hopefulness that maybe somebody can come with some small step and that we will not continue to at least be perceived as marching to a different tune, because the real people who live in those communities that have very, very close boundaries to each other really have some very good signs that things can happen and that we can grow together. I for one on this committee want to encourage as much as I can that we continue to talk. If we do not reach a solution, that is another thing, but we can continue to talk.
1550
The Chair: Mr Toye, before you respond, I have been asked to ask if you could remove the headset because the translation is coming through apparently on to the microphone and it is affecting the sound going out.
Mr Toye: Speaking of politics, I hope you do not do the same thing the federal government did on the free trade deal. Everyone should have a say for what we are going to do. Everyone should have a plebiscite on it.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Well, I thank you for coming before us because we really are very happy that the response we have had to this committee is all ages, all parts of the community and that is going to be helpful to us.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
ARTHUR DAVIS
The Chair: Could I call Arthur Davis.
Mr Davis: In my view, the new Constitution should recognize and embody a principle of sovereignty for the first nations. Naturally, the first nations should be consulted about how they wish to be sovereign. The province of Ontario has shown the way to deal with the first nations by defending them and urging that their land claims be settled. The convention resolution of 1988 is the one that I wish to refer to.
"Whereas there exist in Ontario sovereign Indian nations which have the right as aboriginal peoples to be dealt with justly by Canadian society; whereas this can only be done through the recognition of the Indians' right to control their own affairs; whereas the Indian peoples have entered into treaties and agreements with the crown; but whereas these agreements were made often without the Indians' full understanding and acceptance of the terms of these agreements; and whereas the governments have not respected the terms and spirit of these agreements; therefore, be it resolved that the Canadian government should recognize and respect the Indians' aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights include but are not limited to the following: the right to hunt, fish, trap and harvest without interference; the right to compensation for forest and mineral resources taken by non-Indians; the right to be exempt from all forms of taxation because they are seeking - "
[Failure of sound system]
Mr Davis: " -- according to their own forms of self-governance; the right to receive sufficient resources to develop economically and socially according to the wishes of each band; the right to establish and control their own schools and educational programs; the right to design and administer their own health and social service programs; the right to establish their own rules respecting membership in their bands and respecting order on their reserves and to police themselves through band constables; the right to safeguard all Indian sacred places and to practise their own religions, cultures and languages; the right to be fully involved in the process of revising the Canadian Constitution; the right to be fully consulted and involved in any changes in provincial or federal legislation, regulations and programs which affect Indian peoples.
"Be it further resolved that in order to redress the injustices of the past and to demonstrate respect for these aboriginal rights, the Canadian government should negotiate settlements for any outstanding Indian claims for land, hunting and fishing rights -- "
The Chair: Mr Davis, sorry to interrupt you. We may be having trouble with the sound.
Interjection: Just if you press that button, it will -- there you go.
Mr Davis: Sorry. I regret that.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr Davis: -- "provide sufficient resources to enable the Indian peoples to administer their own educational, health, social services and police programs and recognize the right of the Indian peoples to exclusively harvest wild rice.
"Therefore, be it resolved that this commission" -- this is a commission, is it not? -- "this commission support the principle of self-government and autonomy for Canadian native communities and support policies that will give native communities the economic tools that will allow them to attain self-government and autonomy."
We think the federal government should adopt this resolution in the main. It points, though, to a divided Canada as being necessary. The reason is the sovereignty-seeking natives do not wish to be included. There are elements that do wish, but there are larger elements that do not wish to be included. Therefore, it points towards a system of federated states which would be the form of the future for Canadians -- for Canada. Quebec could be one of these federated states. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Are there questions of Mr Davis? Mr Beer.
Mr Beer: I would just like to ask you, Mr Davis, your sense then of the native population as a separate nation. How do you see that functioning then, that there would be a series of nations within the country or there would be one native independent state?
Mr Davis: I cannot answer that question. I would say that it should be referred to the Indian bands themselves. If they are properly consulted they will work out a form of the Constitution which will suit them, but the important thing is that they should be consulted.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Davis, for your point of view.
Mr Davis: Thank you.
NORTH BAY INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE
The Chair: Could I call next Bill Butler from the North Bay Indian Friendship Centre. He is not here? No, he is coming.
Mr Bisson: Mr Chair, did the previous gentleman have a brief that he could have left with the committee?
The Chair: Mr Davis, members of the committee are wondering whether you have a written brief that you could leave with us.
Mr Davis: Yes, I do.
The Chair: We would appreciate that, if you would. Thank you.
Mr Butler, go ahead.
Mr Butler: Good afternoon. Greetings from the North Bay Indian Friendship Centre, Mr Chairman, as well as members of the select committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to voice the concerns of the North Bay Indian Friendship Centre.
I would like to begin first by giving a definition of what a friendship centre is, for those who may not be aware of what a centre is. A friendship centre is defined as a non-political, non-sectarian, autonomous, community-based organization existing to administer and implement programs to meet the needs of urban native people. The concept of friendship centres originated in the mid-1950s. Its conception was sparked by the increased migration and urbanization of native people in Canada, not only throughout the 1950s but the 1960s as well as the 1970s. This resulted in an urban native community with very distinct characteristics and needs. This transition from rural to urban areas created the need for those support services and programs.
Historically, the reasons for this migration to the urban centres have been primarily for the purpose of accessing better educational and employment opportunities, as well as accessing a better standard of living. There were other reasons as well, some of those being access to specialized medical services, access to other social services, treatment for drug and alcohol problems, adequate housing, escape from sexual and physical abuse. More often than not, the end result was not much better than what they had chosen to leave when they had arrived in the urban areas. The pain and hardships endured by many of our aboriginal brothers and sisters are clearly documented in police files, social service files, children's aid society files and so on and so forth in other files.
1600
One of the existing problems or existing needs that we see in the urban area for native people is native day care. I would like to read a bit from a report that was submitted to our centre just recently from the Native Council of Canada and I will just give the executive summary on it.
"The paternalistic practices of the child welfare system in Canada have seriously damaged native families and communities. In light of this, native communities are beginning to address their needs for native child care programs with hopes for a better future. Native child cane programs, they believe, will reduce the number of children coming into contact with the child welfare system and also provide a means whereby native identities will be strengthened and their culture preserved."
Child care in Canada is neither universal nor affordable. If the Canadian day care community is widely perceived to be in a state of crisis, then the situation is several times greater for native families struggling to either educate themselves or support their families by working in the city. Most urban-rural native peoples are in a marginal economic position, face discrimination and come in contact with institutions insensitive to their needs. Their population is young, transient, highly underemployed, impoverished, is largely made up of young families and single-parent families headed by women. Despite the energy and increasing effectiveness of native advocacy organizations, aboriginal people remain a virtually invisible population in terms of day care statistics or initiatives. Their basic starting position of frequently enormous disadvantage is only partially acknowledged and their strengths as a people very rarely respected.
Traditional native child care emphasizes the central position of the child in the family and the community. Indeed, the child is a child of the community. People with whom the child comes into regular contact often become members of the extended family and as such assume responsibility for the care of the child. Native family systems, unlike the non-native nuclear family, incorporate extended family members from the clan, tribe, as well as members from the larger group. The child within native society is raised on values which emphasize autonomy, belonging, mastery and generosity. According to recent literature, the wisdom of native approaches to child care is now being recognized as a valuable contribution to the field of youth and child care.
Native people want the right to choose, define and run culturally appropriate services in programs which best meet their needs. Such programs and services would incorporate culture in both structure and program content, employ native staff, involve elders, grandparents and extended family members in transmitting cultural values and traditions. However, such development faces obstacles and barriers. Current government legislation and funding procedures define, regulate and control the establishment and operation of child care programs. The development of flexible models of child care, although increasingly supported by provincial governments, have not received the enhanced funding and resources required to succeed.
Native peoples are struggling to regain the right to self-determination and self-government. The development of new child care systems must be viewed within this context because I think it is a part of the struggle. The hopes and aspirations of native people in North Bay, in Ontario, as well as Canada, are not much unlike other Canadian citizens. We appreciate the recognition of the term "aboriginal" in the Constitution of Canada, but we need more than words on parchment. We need better housing. We need better housing standards in cities for all people, not just native people, and it has been clearly identified, when native people have not been able to access native housing or subsidized housing, they run into a myriad of barriers. When searching for housing, one of the problems they encounter is stereotyping. I think stereotyping is probably one of the greatest problems that they encounter. It is followed by discrimination, prejudice, exorbitant rents and, I think, landlords who forget that they were once children who had parents who had to find them accommodation. I think it is a basic, fundamental right of all people on mother earth to have access to housing, to shelter.
I think many Canadians never really fully understand what it means to live in a democracy, especially a multicultural democracy. There are those who have problems with the fact that there are employment equity programs and other such programs for natives and minorities, francophones, employment disadvantaged, disabled and women. In a sense it does hurt me as an aboriginal person to have people who think such thoughts as these, because there is a genuine need for these things. It is not as if they were invented by some policy analyst in Queen's Park or at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa. There is a real need for this and there is a history to justify the need for these and there are circumstances that led up to the development and implementation of these programs. I feel that this is a problem with many of the citizens of Canada, that they really do not have an understanding of why these programs are in existence.
One recommendation that I would give to this committee, as well as maybe a recommendation that will be passed on to your federal counterparts, is that there needs to be more education when developing and implementing and promoting a program. There needs to be more community promotion. The past history with the friendship centre, I have had on various occasions to touch base with employers, but also to touch base with other citizens in the community, and sometimes they are mad as heck because the native person is coming in and trying to access an employment needs program. They feel threatened.
And I see the anglophones of Ontario feel threatened by the francophones, and the francophones may be afraid of what may be happening if native people came in and take their jobs, especially if the person is a native woman and is able to speak French. As the legislation exists, she would probably get the job, unless there was a disabled native woman who could speak French, who would probably beat her out.
I see a lot of fear and misunderstanding in the system. In terms of employment, natives are still under-represented in all areas of employment. It is a sad fact. I think the employment equity programs are good. The concept is good and I think they are helping to alleviate the problem somewhat, but I think a little that something else has to be done to ensure that it is not just all smoke that rises up from Queen's Park or Ottawa, and when the wind catches it, it all blows away.
I think the time probably is right to have, I do not like to say an enforcement agency, but someone to enforce the legislation, and I stand corrected if there is an agency or a ministry that does enforce or does go out into the community to see if the private sector and the ministries are hiring aboriginal people, women, disabled, everyone who comes under the target group.
1610
I think one of the things that needs to be done in terms of hiring, of employment practices, is that we need to look at the system that has been in place for many years, and that is the old boys who hire the new boys who become the old boys who hire the new bays. It is really a vicious cycle. I remember hearing someone speak not too long ago who said the reason why there are a number of francophone workers in the federal civil service is because a number of the old boys are now francophones and they will hire the young francophones who will in turn became the older francophones who will hire. One of the recommendations from this gentleman with regard to natives was that you need to get some of the old boys in there who are native who will hire some young native boys who will become the old native boys, and I think that applies not only to francophones and natives, but to women, disabled and minorities as well.
I have been hearing a lot of talk about feelings and I sense that the thrust of the feelings, or at least my thoughts about their feelings or what I am sensing from their feelings, appears to be that it is based on fear. I know when I was a young boy, if my father struck fear into me if I did not do something, I really did not perform very well. Even in my process of everyday working and family, if I feel as if I am forced into a corner, I usually come out the best way I know how, and sometimes that may not be the best way.
I am of Algonquin descent, mixed; my father is Irish and my mother was Algonquin Ojibway. The Ojibway nation and a lot of other nations have seven traditional values that, to me, are very important, and they are things that I wish would have been instructed and given to me as a young person. These values are things that need to be incorporated into native day care, because I see that for native people the reason for native people encountering numerous problems in mainstream society is that they are native people trying to be non-native people.
Not that there is anything wrong with being non-native. If you are white you cannot be black, and if you are native you cannot be non-native; you are native. Unfortunately being a native person for many of us who are native people is that we have lost our identity, have lost our cultural values and teachings that made us very civilized nations for tens of thousands of years before Europeans touched the shores of Canada, and we had a way to live and we had a way to exist.
The seven values that I am talking about are caring, sharing, kindness, wisdom, harmony, respect and balance. As I said earlier, many of the aboriginal people in this country have never heard of these values, or have heard of some or do not live a traditional lifestyle or do not have the values that were passed down from generation to generation.
It is quite evident that native people have not been successful in mainstream society. In the friendship centre we try to develop programs that will promote cultural enrichment, cultural awareness, not just for the sake of getting together and beating on a drum or socializing -- yes, we do those things for those reasons -- but it is also to become familiar with who we are. As I look around the table I see many faces, but I do not know what your nationality is unless I look at your name. Even by your name I cannot tell because you come from two parents. You could be Italian and Jewish. You could be French and German. You could be Scotch -- I will not say Irish, but British and something else. It is important that we as Canadians, and that we as Ontarians respect one another.
One of the most important traditional values of native people is respect. Unfortunately a lot of native people also have lost these values. We still have lots to learn. We have lots to regain. We cannot go back and change the past, but we can take a look back at the past. As well, this committee can look back at the past of how you came up through the ranks and how you all were in your constituencies, what made you the politicians that you are today.
These are specifically native viewpoints. I have a couple of other viewpoints on Canada and these are specifically my own. The gist of this was specifically my own because I really did not have much time to prepare for this.
Quebec: I love Quebec. Quebec is part of Canada. It hurts me to hear people talk about Quebec as a foreign country. They are not a foreign country. They are part of the fabric of Canada. Quebec was Quebec before French people were there, or it was part of the nation that the aboriginal people of Canada lived in.
I think most native people love Quebec as much as I do because we have a closeness to the land. We do not own the land. We just use the land and live upon it. It would be really unfortunate to have Quebec leave the country of Canada, as it would be unfortunate for Ontario or British Columbia or any other province to leave. I think that is something that, as a country, the country has to stand up and say, "No, Quebec, you cannot leave," and, "No, Ontario, you cannot leave," and British Columbia and any other province, "because you are a country."
Because we are a multicultural society we need to do some things and some of those things are that we must respect our brothers and sisters of all races. We must accept and understand the diversity of our different cultures, and we must understand our own culture and not be afraid to accept or understand other cultures, because it is only through the understanding that we will let go of the fear.
I thank you for having the opportunity to speak today. Meegwetch.
1620
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Butler. We do have time for one, possibly two questions.
Mr Winninger: Your remarks certainly carry a lot of weight, because historically it seems that however much hardship there was on reserves, off reserves the situation for natives has been bleaker still when they lose those constitutional protections they have enjoyed and the fiduciary responsibility the federal government has exercised over status natives on reserves.
It seems that one way in which you can fulfil that need is to establish more friendship centres. I know we have one in London that is very active and has a Sweetgrass day care centre which can inculcate those kinds of values you are advocating. I guess it is premised on your knowledge of on-reserve facilities for families and day care, how you might see a self-governing arrangement evolving for family services and day care facilities. This links in with some earlier comments that were made today. Can you comment on that, how native people might --
Mr Butler: On reserve or off reserve?
Mr Winninger: Are you able to comment on reserve, first of all?
Mr Butler: No, I am not. I decline to comment on reserve.
Mr Winninger: What about off reserve then?
Mr Butler: I think that a policy with regard to native day care should be looked at quite in depth when the province of Ontario would be looking at meeting with aboriginal people on reserve, off reserve, to develop a policy on native day care because it is a very worthwhile issue. As I said earlier, and the report stated, the day care situation in Ontario and Canada is in crisis, that native people who are always at the bottom of the ladder will suffer seven times greater or several times greater. Yes, and I think that it would be first and foremost.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you so much, Bill, for bringing very full answers on our first question on values and our second question on relationships with the native peoples. I hope you have been watching, as much as you could, what we have been doing in the last six or seven days. Many natives have presented to us and I think you would have been very interested to have been with us in Sault Ste Marie one day last week when we had four native women present to us. One of them had said the same as you, that for some time she had lost her culture and now had come back to spread it, and how endearing that was.
In this time and age when family life is under such stress and strain, you again this afternoon, as we heard many times last week, talked about family values, the necessity for having some roots in our lives and for building those on the values that you mention: honour, honesty, respect, wisdom and harmony. At a time when we are trying to work something out, I think we have to call upon those values. some people call them virtues; you call them values.
I want to just thank you from the bottom of my heart for shaming with us so personally and with such clarity and the way you brought it with true respect this afternoon. Those you represent can be truly proud of you.
Mr Butler: Meegwetch.
The Chair: Meegwetch.
DAWSON PRATT
The Chair: Could I call then next Dawson Pratt.
Mr Pratt: First of all, I would like to let you know that I am presenting on behalf of the Nipissing NDP riding association and the North Bay and District Labour Council and advocacy groups in the community for the disabled.
First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss a new Canada. I commend this process, albeit a short-notice process. That is by way of an apology for the rambling presentation that I will present to you, but hopefully there will be a thread to it.
I guess I will start off by saying that we need a Canada where all its citizens are participants and have access to essential services. We need to redistribute the abundant wealth of our country. We can do this through a serious tax reform. It should be a simple process based on net wealth. I am not suggesting that we impose unrealistic standards. However, there is no doubt that the vast accumulation of wealth has hurt our society.
Every citizen is entitled to and must have a minimum standard of living. That includes decent housing, proper nutrition, medical care and an opportunity to be trained and educated. Moreover, all Canadians expect and deserve access to a decent paying job.
The present minimum wage standards are a disgrace both at the federal and provincial levels. As Premier Rae has indicated, the best anti-poverty program is a decent paying job. All working people need to know that health and safety come first, not profits. If by any strange fate someone becomes injured then they should be assured and certain that all medical needs and rehabilitation needs will be honoured, and that they and their families will not suffer economic hardship.
Presently the Workers' Compensation Board process and bureaucracy have failed the working people of Ontario. We need to promote access to all avenues of life for disabled persons. It should come as no surprise that in Ontario and in Canada if you are disabled you statistically will be poor, undereducated and subject to systemic discrimination. This must not continue in a new Canada. We must institute across-the-board mandatory employment equity programs.
Governments and educational and training facilities must not only ensure access to admission, but access to success. Presently Ontario has a pitiful record in this field, particularly at the post-secondary level.
Workers must not be made the first victims of environmental legislative changes. The environment and alternative sources of energy and less dependency on fossil fuels must be pursued vigorously.
Canadians must not continue to assist the military-industrial complex in the proliferation and production of arms and weapons of mass destruction. Canada must pursue its own foreign policy and play a vital peacekeeping role. Recently our record has been drastically tarnished and it will be difficult to recover from these actions. However, we must advocate world peace and the reduction of the world's arsenals.
We are in a crisis with regard to health care and the runaway costs. These with a vested interest control our health care model. We must front-end load our system to focus on prevention. How can we justify, in Ontario, spending more than $5 billion on 6,000 physicians, nearly a third of our health care costs? I find this immoral and offensive. If we provide adequate housing and sufficient incomes for all our citizens in a healthy environment, then health care costs would decrease dramatically.
But let us not forget that the present system is a series of competing empires. Duplication and competition are expensive. Health care professionals and administrators are not encouraged to be creative or efficient. We have arrived at this position because the decision-making process is not democratic nor does it encourage consensus on participatory measures.
Canadians have been shortchanged by previous governments and multinational corporations in the management of technology, training and education. The tradeoff for the Mulroney free trade deal was to be vastly improved training opportunities. This has never materialized. We need federal and provincial training and education commissions that are employee- and employer-driven with outside professional advisory support staff, and the employee-employer representatives will have parity.
Canadians need to be certain that a minimum 2% to 3% of profits be invested in research and development. A training tax must be instituted to encourage and revitalize the apprenticeship programs. There is presently no real incentive for employers to see an apprenticeship through to its conclusion. Long and protracted labour disputes are extremely damaging to regional and local economies and create unnecessary hardships. Binding arbitration should be heard after a three-month period, and there should be the institution of antiscabbing legislation. Adequate, mandatory, portable pension systems must be implemented.
1630
Canadians must seriously reflect on the merits of toleration and acceptance. By way of an analogy I offer: When children grow up, they ought to be encouraged to maximize their experiences and potential and they are always welcome home despite any differences. If the people of Quebec feel that their destiny lies in a different configuration, then it is presumptuous of Ontarians to think that they can prevent or obstruct Quebec's right to self-determination.
However, what Ontarians and Canadians can do is treat Quebec as a brother or a sister and remain extremely close, appreciating the significant differences. Like brothers and sisters, we need each other. Co-operation should be the order of the day. In fact, this may expand and nurture all kinds of exchanges, for example, social and economic, and encourage east and west trade. We should never burn any bridges. Time and distance are great healers.
Canada should entrench in any constitutional amendments the rights of the disabled, aboriginal peoples, minorities, children and women. In reference to Ottawa and the federal government, the feds are only the sum of their parts and must play a key facilitative role. All partners in Confederation have an obligation to work in harmony. The present competitive atmosphere is the product of unbridled, free-market ideology and rugged individualistic attitudes. I ask you, do you want a Canada that allows one region or a province or a vested interest to profit at the expense of the common good?
We should step emphasizing what divides us and refocus on what we have in common. International economy and globalization should not be synonymous with exploitation, lack of environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, low wages, no benefits, etc. Full employment must be our goal. It is tragic that 26,000 individuals have lost their jobs in Ontario this last month. There are 1.3 million Canadians unemployed and probably 200,000 or 300,000 Canadians that have simply given up.
We should emphasize economic diversification and local decision-making, and this is especially important in northern Ontario. Aboriginal peoples must receive justice and all land claims must be completed and self-government instituted. They must be given access to all government records surrounding their land claim disputes. The Indian affairs ministry must be dismantled and integrated into existing portfolios.
Those in western and eastern Canada who feel that central Canada dominates the political structure are correct. However, if we espouse democratic principles and believe in the notion of representation by population, the majority rules albeit not at the tyranny of the minority, then what mechanisms could we conceivably utilize to counter such lofty principles? I say none. To some extent we are at the mercy of our geography. We certainly do not support an elected Senate and only see an elected Senate as a further Americanization of our political structure.
We must encourage sensible distribution of immigrants coming to Canada, and Ontario in particular. We must make all efforts to encourage settlement in areas outside of the metropolitan areas. We must not encourage migration from northern Ontario. Governments should be made less bureaucratic and more responsive in a meaningful and timely fashion. Citizens are feeling alienated from the very processes and structures that were designed to make their life in Canada more meaningful and worthy.
We must encourage Ontarians and Canadians to reflect inwardly and ask themselves what can they do to make our communities, our province, our country and our world more caring and a decent place to live. By doing so, we are encouraging empowerment and collective self-determination.
Once again, I thank you for this opportunity and I apologize for the rambling nature of the presentation.
The Chair: No need to apologize, Mr Pratt. Thanks for your presentation. There are a couple of questions. Mrs O'Neill first.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Mr Pratt, there were a couple of things you mentioned that I would like you to say a little bit more about. You talked about access to success, and I have a little bit of difficulty with that concept. I would like you to say a little bit about that. You also said, in relation to that statement, that that was particularly at the post-secondary level, and I wonder if you could be explicit in the example you are offering.
Mr Pratt: I speak from experience in my capacity of employment. I am the co-ordinator of special-needs services at a community college, Canadore College in this community, and have networked with all of the people who do likewise in the rest of the province. The province of Ontario undertook a task force report in 1985 that suggested that 1% of the budget be spent on special-needs services. At the present rate, 0.25% is spent, and that is based on 1985-86 dollars, ie, it means $4 million has been allocated in the previous fiscal year and the real figure should be $16 million based on 1985-86 figures.
I say that because the colleges have done a fairly good job of making the admission criteria more liberal. However, that is only one small component in the puzzle. Why I say "access to success" is that, what do we do and what services do we put in place to ensure that they will be successful? Getting in the door is only a very small part of the puzzle of getting through the system with the supports, which they will be able to get through, and being successful and being rewarded in an occupation rather than being on a pension or being on social assistance. This will also be helped through mandatory employment equity programs, but we have to have trained people to fulfil those equity employment positions.
Disabled persons are not looking for a free ride. What they are looking for is opportunity, and it can be opportunity to be successful or not successful, but given every opportunity.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I understand that. I did not realize you were the same Mr Pratt whose letter I had answered because you did not identify yourself in the capacity you just mentioned. I did not realize --
The Chair: Very briefly, Mrs O'Neill, as we are going to carry on with another questioner.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Okay. I did not think you were placing that just to the disabled. I thought you were talking about the post-secondary system in Ontario, which I think has had an outstanding success rate as far as employment is concerned.
My final question is: You talked about a training tax. Could you say a little bit about that?
Mr Pratt: I think that we should look at the models that have operated in Europe, and I know a number of people who have gone to Germany and looked at the apprenticeship programs there. I think if employers all have to pay or businesses have to pay a training tax, then they will be encouraged to utilize the services of apprentices. If they have no financial vested interest in the training programs of Ontario, then they ought not to use them.
The other thing is that in small communities, employers who do hire apprentices lose apprentices when they are taken by big corporations that do not spend the time in the apprenticeship program.
Ms Churley: You mentioned that workers should not have to pay the price for environmental cleanup, and I agree with that. I think we all would. Of course you said also that the environment should be kept clean. We should clean up the mess and we need also to make sure that we do not continue to pollute.
As you know, the government is bringing forth a new environmental bill of rights in the spring session. In effect, a couple of things that it will do is, one, allow workers to shut a plant down if necessary or at least stop work and, two, allow citizens to take polluters to court. The implications of that, as you can imagine, are pretty wide, and those are being worked on might now.
In the meantime, we have a dilemma. We are in a dichotomy where a lot of the work that is provided still comes from polluting industries. It is very expensive to retrofit those some of the time. This is something that we all have to cope with. It cannot be environment versus jobs, yet we know that we have to stop polluting the environment. I am just wondering what your ideas are on how we can deal with that, particularly in the smaller companies that are polluting that provide jobs to small communities.
Mr Pratt: Well, I think you are right. I do not think there is a quick fix, but I think if money had been invested in research and development, then we would not continue with quick, fast-buck technology as opposed to technology that is out in the world. The pulp and paper industry has not incorporated the technology that is available in other countries around the world and it also has not managed a manageable product in such a way that we will have sustained economy.
1640
I think the tradeoff is that the training dollars have to be available to workforces that will be displaced by the environment, but I certainly think you cannot put the cart before the horse. The training dollars have to be there, companies have to be encouraged to develop new technologies that are non-polluting, and if we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, which are one of the leading polluters in our society, then we will have taken a step in the right direction. I think we have to have the support systems in place before we make these changes.
The Chair: One last brief question. Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You have covered many areas in a comprehensive fashion. During our hearings we have been hearing many presentations dealing with the whole question of protection of language and culture. We have heard about the necessity of Bill 8, and some have come and spoken to us about enhancing Bill 8. Others have spoken about official bilingualism, a whole raft of opinions.
I am wondering, Mr Pratt, as you have gone through so many different issues and concerns dealing with the rights of individuals, if you have any thoughts that you might wish to share with us on the issue of Bill 8, its enhancement, or the position of Ontario vis-à-vis official bilingualism.
Mr Pratt: That is of significant importance, obviously, in our community with a francophone population in the district of Nipissing of 30%. I am certainly on record as endorsing Bill 8 and endorsing official bilingualism in Ontario. I think what we have to do is put aside the myths with regard to language rights in Ontario and get on and move into the future.
There has been far too much politicking about language rights for Franco-Ontarians, that Franco-Ontarians represent 500,000 people in this province. It is high time that we moved on to other issues. People in our particular district certainly understand the effects of underservicing in the language of their choice, so I think it goes without saying that in northern Ontario, and hopefully all of Ontario, we could get that kind of support.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Pratt, thanks very much.
STANLEY CERISANO
The Chair: Our final speaker this afternoon is Stanley Cerisano.
Mr Cerisano: Thank you, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Stanley Cerisano, and I just received the eight questions that I am supposed to reply to. I will capsulize my responses to these eight questions, and then I will go on to some other continents. Although I do not espouse all the virtues of Mr Pratt's views, I have some pretty broad views of my own.
"1. What are the values we share as Canadians?"
I would say quickly a harmonious melting pot of cultures and languages.
"2. How can we secure a future in the international economy?"
Improved communication and goodwill with our trading partners and cultures.
"3. What roles should the federal and provincial governments play?"
I believe they should ensure a high level of communication between Canadians and encourage learning of new languages in our schools, if possible.
"4. How do we achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal peoples?"
I think this is an important question and I would advocate that they be granted their own form of government, beginning with law enforcement and justice and of course within our own system.
"5. What are the roles of English and French languages in Canada?"
Basically to promote harmony and co-operation between founding cultures and other cultures.
"6. What is Quebec's future in Canada?"
To remain in Canada as a partner with other cultures and work towards making Canada stronger and more successful in an international economy.
"7. What is the place of the west, the north and the Atlantic regions?"
I believe they should work towards the same end.
"8. What does Ontario want?"
Ontario should act as a glue that binds Canada together.
Now what do I want? My prime 1991 wish for a better Canada is a badly needed election reform. I would like to see:
1. The senators each elected for a maximum five-year term with obligatory retirement at age 75. In order to create a desirable balance to Parliament, each senator should be non-partisan and independent so he or she could vote according to his or her conscience rather than in accordance with the wishes of the puppeteer who appoints him or her.
2. Reform the electoral system so that each leader of a party, Prime Minister and Premier, not be required to contest the seat or represent a specific riding. I would prefer to see the header of each party chosen by his elected colleagues rather than by the present very expensive and inefficient system. He or she might be elected Prime Minister or Premier by the elected MPs or MPPs of the prevailing party following a general election. His or her term should never extend beyond two consecutive terms, and he should also be subject to review by his colleagues every two years. Possible replacement similar to the recent British action or even impeachment similar to the American system should be a distinct possibility, for the benefit of the party and the country.
3. Democratic elections should be redesigned to give the voter the choice of an individual candidate as well as a preferred party and its policies. The popular vote should not be obscured as it is now but rather be used to reflect a direct influence on which party is granted power.
4. No MP or MPP should be allowed to contest more than two consecutive terms. This feature might also be considered desirable if applied to municipal politics as well.
5. A system must be developed to reduce the exorbitant costs of contesting an election, which presently preclude many qualified candidates from seeking office.
The foregoing suggestions are not merely fertile ideas for improvement, but current events dictate that their implementation is essential to our political and economical survival. Is our present electoral system really democratic? Could it not be improved upon to avoid future Meech Lake, GST, deficits, free trade, pork-barrelling and other shenanigans? Without the required control checks and balances the blatant abuse of power displayed over the last few years will continue to fester and destroy us. Canadians deserve better.
If I might go on to the language issue. The language issue, Meech Lake, Bill 8, Bill 178, bilingualism and biculturalism are commanding too much media attention. As Canadians we might do well to stand back and analyse the whole spectrum of this fiasco. This is not a case of English against French sentiment, as some scribes infer. It is a simple case of a government-sponsored destructive division of our population.
Before this movement surfaced, the English and French Canadians, with very few exceptions, got along very well as Canadians, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and other denominations and ethnic groups. Splits create friction. Friction creates heat. Emotional heat combined with inflammatory instigation from Quebec and abroad results in animosities, dissension and sometimes violence.
Whenever you divide a group into factions you risk all of this. For example, our elementary and high school systems may be getting too expensive for the already overburdened average taxpayer to bear. The ever increasing divisions and demands in this area tend to compound an already desperate situation. First we had public and separate schools, then English and French, then ordinary French and elite French. What next?
The bilingualism-biculturalism policy would have succeeded if only the federal government had not conveyed the impression that French was being rammed down Canadians' throats, or if the wasted B and B funds had been more effectively directed towards encouraging the teaching of conversational French at the kindergarten level where it can be more quickly and easily absorbed. At the same time this policy would have generated a harmonious relationship among fellow students of all linguistic origins.
Ten years of this B and B policy could have produced a far greater number of fluently bilingual Canadians for business and government jobs, thus reducing the objectionable need to discriminate against these who are not fluently French. The Scandinavian countries' educational system, for example, requires that all their students study English in addition to their native language, as well as their choice of either German or French. Canada, including Quebec, would do well to adopt a similar policy in order to better prepare our students for the highly competitive global enterprise of the future.
1650
Refusing to learn and speak English in Quebec, or refusing to learn French in the rest of Canada, is counterproductive. It does nothing to promote Canadian unity or a harmonious relationship throughout the country. It is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
When Bourassa sent his language bill to the Supreme Court for adjudication and then smugly thumbed his nose at the judges who brought down a decision which he did not like, he created a backlash in the rest of Canada which destroyed all sympathy for his Meech Lake accord and distinct society. He also undermined the honest attempts of other provinces to accommodate their francophones. Are not English-speaking Canadians of all ethnic origins justified in being incensed? Perhaps their reaction may appear too drastic, but they may also feel that their actions now are necessary to thwart further incursions into their constitutional rights and tax dollars.
The predominating mood that needs correcting is not so much the anti-French sentiment as the anti-English one. This destructive element originates in Quebec and is carried into Ontario and the rest of Canada, sometimes with help from the québécois and France itself. Would it not be productive and beneficial for our religious leaders of all denominations to instil Christian principles and unity rather than French or English nationalism, animosity and disunity among their flocks? Why can we not all lock arms, French, English and other ethnic groups, march forward together as Canadians in a spirit of harmony, co-operation and respecting each other's rights and aspirations? There may still be time to begin now.
Mr Bisson: The more I listened to your presentation the more intrigued I became, because you are sort of arguing on both sides of the issue. I guess I missed something.
You alluded in your brief to a reformed election system. I think I have to agree with you to a point with regard to how politicians may be perceived, no matter what party we are with and what level of government we come from. I think there is a sentiment out there that may be justified to a certain extent. Maybe sometimes it is also a perception that politicians are bad people or do not do the right thing or do not invoke the will of the people.
In your presentation you touched on two things that I found kind of interesting, that I would like you to expand on. One of the things you said was that you wanted to see a system of election by which MPPs or MPs would be elected as individuals but then we would vote for the party. I take it that you are trying to get rid of party politics, but I do not see how that would happen. That is really what I would like you to talk on, that point. In other words, you said we elect the member, then we elect the governing party. I fail to see how that would get rid of party politics.
The second thing you touched an, electing the Premier or Prime Minister through the elected bodies of the Legislature or the House of Commons -- I always thought it was a fairly good idea we have within a democracy that we as people within the nation have a direct say in who is going to lead our country, and that every four years we have a right and an obligation to pass judgement through our vote on whether we agree or disagree with his or her policies of the government.
Again, on that second point, what would it accomplish for us, as members of a Legislature, to elect our Premier and elect our leaders? Can you explain that to me? I cannot see the usefulness of that process.
Mr Cerisano: You must not forget the fact that the MPPs are elected by the general voters, then they in turn can choose their leader. What is wrong with that premise?
Mr Bisson: So you are advocating that the voters themselves would not have the choice of who would be Premier and Prime Minister.
Mr Cerisano: They would be electing more members of one party or the other, in that sense. I would like to discuss that with you some time. I think we cannot do it now.
The Chair: We are going to break now, so you can do it if you wish. That concludes the afternoon session from North Bay, here at the Royal Canadian Legion. We will resume at 6 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1657.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1817.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to welcome everyone who is here this evening. For those people who will be following our proceedings over the parliamentary network, we are of course resuming the hearings of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation from North Bay, in the Royal Canadian Legion. We have had a full afternoon and morning of speakers today and we have also a full evening of speakers to hear from.
I would like to ask all of the people who are on the list -- for these of you who have a printed list, there are a number of additions to the list -- because we have been trying to be flexible in allowing people to get added to the list upon arriving at any particular destination, we do ask for the understanding of those of you whose names appear on the printed list, and indeed the others, to try to be as short as you can in your presentation.
We would like to ask these people who were on the original list to try keep their comments to about 10 minutes if you are making a personal presentation and up to 20 minutes if you are presenting on behalf of an organization. That will allow us to try to get through. We may have to trim the time as we get towards the end of the evening, but we will do our best to try to accommodate as many speakers as we can.
RONALD BOWES
The Chair: With that, let me start by calling Ronald Bowes.
Mr Bowes: A few years ago, at the times where you would get up in the morning and you would have breakfast, I would sit and talk with my wife. We would talk about how our kids went to school and now they have grown up, and then we would talk about our days at the deaf school and about graduating and what that was like and how the people have left home. Since that time, what we notice in our community is that many parents here have to send their deaf kids away, and in my wife's time she was actually sent away to a mental institution.
We talk about this and we remember this and it brings back thoughts of things that make us sad, when we hear stories in the community of deaf people; for example, in Quebec, how the government ordered the closing of deaf schools. Then they will open other schools and they talk about opening up services in other parts of Canada, but it is not what we need. There are a lot of gaps in the kinds of services that we have. We have 10 provinces, but the point is that we are underserviced as a community, and not all the schools should be closed. What we want to do is to keep all our provinces together, and even if Quebec were to separate, what that would mean for us in terms of economy and the services and how that would impact on us.
I want you to think about helping deaf people. When I hook back at our time, when people were sent away to mental institutions, this is wrong. We need a better system and we need clubs for the deaf here in North Bay and in Timmins and in Sudbury. I think it would be better if we had those kinds of services to improve our life here in the north of Ontario.
I ask for your support in that, so that deaf people can continue to stay in the north and live happy lives. There is a community in Barrie of about 60 deaf people and we have some other deaf people around -- there are about 20 who come to the club. But here in North Bay we have a really tiny community and we would like to see that support come from the government. I want to thank you.
The Chair: Mr Bowes, if you --
Mr Malkowski: I have a brief question, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Malkowski, go ahead.
Mr Malkowski: In Saskatchewan, the school for the deaf there, there is talk of that school being closed. We talked about Quebec, how it may be closing the school and said we need a federal standard so that schools will not be closed, something to be enshrined within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so we will see a standard, so deaf people will not have to wormy about the closing of our institutions. You talked a little bit about how deaf people had been mislabelled and sent away to mental institutions.
Mr Bowes: Yes. You have to understand that when deaf people go into the clubs and socialize, that is our home. That is where we feel comfortable and equal. That is our community, where we feel empowered. Here in northern Ontario we need to have those institutions supported. We cannot financially support them and we need the support from mainstream society to keep our institutions alive.
Mr Bisson: Can you convey to the committee, and I guess for people who are watching, the importance of deaf culture in the development of children from the time of entering the school system to the time that they actually end up into the workforce, the importance of being educated within your own culture?
Mr Bowes: It is interesting. When my wife and I are talking sometimes -- well, a few years ago, actually, when we were sitting together talking -- this was after breakfast and we were reminiscing and thinking about how my wife's school at that time, why it is closed and what is going on. The deaf people are just sent off here and there and hidden away. We said, "Well, we can't change things," but then the war came and hearing and deaf people seemed at that time a little more -- they seemed to understand a little better. But I think we tend to be forgotten about. I guess that is all I need to say about that. I do not know what else to say. If you want to ask me more questions, or do I ask you questions? I do not know what we do here.
The Chair: We will deal with questions, if there are any, Mr Bowes. Ms Churley.
Ms Churley: Actually, I do not have a question. I just wanted to thank you very much for coming out to talk to us. I think for most of us politicians the deaf culture is new to us as well, and having Gary as a colleague has made a big difference to all of us in the Legislature.
Mr Bowes: Oh, yes. He is our first in the world. He is wonderful.
Ms Churley: And we agree with you.
Mr Bowes: We finally have someone on the inside to speak for us. We were really happy in the summer to hear that Gary had won and that he is now sitting in Queen's Park in Toronto. This certainly gives us cause to celebrate. Finally, our dreams do get realized. We are very happy to have him and we would like to wish him the best. Am I done now or is there more?
The Chair: Yes, I think so. Thank you very much.
NATIVE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE OF NORTH BAY
The Chair: Could I call Archie Cheechoo, the chairman of the Native Citizens' Committee of North Bay.
Mr Cheechoo: This looks a little bit intimidating. It seems to me that I am being surrounded now and I am in the wagon.
I wish to thank you for being here and for being allowed to come before this committee to share with you some of my thoughts. I will be speaking on a first person basis with respect to my presentation, but the recommendations in my report can be cited as the recommendations of the native citizens' committee.
I welcome this unique opportunity to speak before a provincial delegation on constitutional issues on matters affecting Canada and Ontario. In particular I wish to address this from my perspective as a traditional native person of this country.
First of all, I am thankful for those Canadians of all nationalities who have expressed support for justice to aboriginal Canadians. Without their support, the governments of this country might not have adopted those changes that have occurred to date. These changes have not come easy for my people. My leaders have fought hard to realize a small measure of justice. I am also thankful to those truly honourable politicians who have spoken out in support of our cause and the lawyers, legal counsel who have given so much of their time, all these groups being aware that they may be rejected and affected by their stance on Indian issues.
As I followed the news reports on constitutional issues and our aboriginal concerns, I was left with the impression that they were trying to scare the public to believe we would take everything if we had the chance. Time and again our people have pleaded: "Let us run our own lives. We did it before and we can do it again."
Unfortunately for our people the Canadian vision is clouded with so many myths, prejudices, stereotypes and inaccuracies about our people, their history and their jurisdictions. These kinds of misrepresentative values extend right into the souls of our being. If we are ever to find hope and peace among us, we must learn to be human beings again. It hurts me to see how the so-called respected leaders of this country throw aside the values of respect, honesty, truth and justice.
1830
Somewhere within our democracy, within the institutions of this country and province, we are completely missing the point. If we are to coexist meaningfully in this country, we need a new order and we must reassess everything from our values, our teachings, our institutions, our governing structures if we are to have a positive impact on the way our society thinks and the way we relate to each other. Federal and provincial leaders must be prepared to make changes that have never been tried before.
For example, the educational system must be completely overhauled at the elementary and secondary levels. Curriculum that teaches respect, honesty, truth and justice must be the cornerstone of a new educational process. Curriculum must be developed with our traditional and historical accuracies included. Our people should be directly involved in the development of new approaches.
In those areas and regions of Canada where other cultures are a majority, such as German, Italian, Chinese and so on, they should be allowed the right to include curriculum geared to their cultures. In our Indian communities native curriculum and language should be mandatory and supported legislatively by the province of Ontario. Program contents should stress peace and unity and express the many cultures of Canadians and their contribution to the Canadian mosaic.
Assimilation into the larger Canadian context is no longer a workable solution. The desire of Quebec to have a distinct society is honourable. However, its policy is assimilationist for the aboriginal inhabitants of that province. Quebec desires recognition but fails on the other hand to suggest the same medicine for the aboriginal nations in Quebec. We must be careful as a nation to protect all interests and especially the aboriginal people. Without our full involvement Canada cannot claim to the world community to be a nation that strives for justice for all.
Our leaders try to raise issues of justice for our people but we are segregated by a legal system that is not open to matters of moral justice. In many instances, a legal right for you has meant a denied moral right for my people. The governments of this country must address our rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights demands such a requirement.
The Nishnawbe-Aski Nation of northern Ontario in 1979 presented its case before the fourth Russell tribunal at Rotterdam, Holland. The case involved our questioning of the validity of the James Bay Treaty 9. The arguments to our case were accepted by the international jurists. Both Canada and Ontario were found to have contravened a number of articles under the declamation of human rights. Canada is a signatory to that UN convention.
Deal with us honestly and fairly. Settle our outstanding claims and issues. Let us feel a part of our own country. Let us into the federal and provincial confederation without legislative straitjackets.
I suggest the province consider seriously the following additional recommendations:
1. Support the aboriginal people to be full partners at all future constitutional conferences, whether they be between Canada and individual provinces and territories or between Canada and the provinces and territories.
2. Even though the territories have a majority native population, support their desire to became provinces.
3. We challenge the province to develop legislation and through an order in council recognize Indian self-government flowing from section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
4. Within Ontario, we suggest the convening of provincial constitutional conferences between Ontario and the aboriginal Indian organizations and their member nations and/or people they represent to address these issues. Further, we suggest these conferences be fully televised.
5. We recommend that Canada and Ontario renegotiate the James Bay Treaty 9.
6. We recommend that Ontario negotiate with our people of Treaty 9 to settle outstanding compensation for the loss or displacement of our right to hunt, fish and trap which has been affected in some cases for ever. The loss of our economy has not been adequately dealt with through occupied crown lands.
7. Due to the displacement of our right and livelihood by resource development, we recommend that these companies compensate our people through a percentage share for the extraction of the natural resources from our displaced areas.
8. We recommend that Ontario and Canada protect our traditional religious ceremonies and our sacred and ceremonial sites through provincial legislation and constitutional enactments. The United States Constitution carries that protection for the aboriginal people in the US.
In conclusion, I feel the road ahead constitutionally is not clear at this time. My people have been let down so many times. It appears Quebec is hardening its position because of this. I wonder if again we as native people will become the expendable item on provincial and national agendas. While I try to be optimistic, the reality of Kahnawake and Oka are still a burning reminder of how quickly a government can be militant towards our issues and concerns.
I do believe, though, that many Canadians wish to see a just settlement of native concerns. It however seems their governments have not been as accommodating to date. I do believe our mutual desires to achieve a better world for our respective cultures in a collective Canada is an honourable and just goal, but do not forget us this time.
The Chair: Mr Cheechoo, I think I can say on behalf of the committee that as you have pointed out in your closing comments, many Canadians want to see a just settlement of the various outstanding native issues, and I think that has certainly been true in the kinds of presentations we have heard so far, a cross-section of people, both native and non-native people. I can assure you that there is that sense within this committee and obviously within the government. But having said that we realize, as I think I said a couple of nights ago, that words are not sufficient and that in the end it will be the deeds that will tell whether in fact any progress has been made. We are conscious of that.
Mr Bisson: I originally started off with one question and ended up with a list of about 20. There are many things you touched on that I would like to be able to really sit down and have a discussion about and it is something that I am carrying on in my own riding, obviously.
There are two things I would like to touch on. One comment that you made really, I right away marked out as being the number one thing that I had to ask you. You made the comment in your presentation that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, although desirable, meant the assimilation of native people within Quebec. Can you explain that?
Mr Cheechoo: Okay. The aboriginal people in Quebec like us are seeking recognition, have been seeking recognition in the Canadian Constitution for their self-government and the issues and the concerns that we have with respect to our own jurisdictions within our provinces are being left behind because of it. Do you understand what I mean?
Mr Bisson: So what you are saying is you are afraid of being lost in the shuffle.
Mr Cheechoo: Okay, what I am saying is that Quebec is going for a distinct society. I say that is good. They want to go for a distinct society and they are looking for those additional powers, but at the same time they are not looking at us and recognizing the same thing within the native community.
1840
Mr Bisson: Okay. I have got you. But the second part of the question, and very quickly, is the new-found hope that you are feeling as a people with regard to the goodwill that is being expressed. I think we have been hearing fairly constantly through these hearings that people are genuinely saying: "We support self-government for aboriginal people. We think it is long overdue." You knew there is a lot of good support there. First of all, how does that make you feel? Obviously, the question is self-answering, to a certain extent, but how deep do you think that goal is? How deep do you think the support is?
Mr Cheechoo: I think there is one way to explain that. A lot of the non-native people who have come and participated in our ceremonies, who have begun to know about us, who begin to knew our culture have had a different opinion. They have changed in their thoughts and opinions about our people and I think that is a plus.
The other thing is that I was involved in the political arena for 17 years at the constitutional conferences, as well. I was working with a lot of lawyers and I worked with a lot of people who were genuinely interested and genuinely wanted to understand where we were coming from. As a result of beginning to understand that we were not wanting the whole thing, that there was a way we could find a compromise, I think then they began to give us that support. I think what has not happened is that what we have been talking about has not been clearly expressed in Canada before, and so that is what has made it difficult for a lot of people to be able to understand what we have been talking about in terms of sovereignty, in terms of self-government.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation as you have taken us so clearly through a series of recommendations. There are two questions I want to ask. The first is if you might share with the committee something about the Native Citizens' Committee of North Bay, something about its composition, when it was in existence. I think that that would be helpful for us, but before we get on to that there has been obviously a great deal of discussion and there shall of course be much more dealing with the whole question of Quebec's place in Canada and any new reconfiguration of Confederation or what have you. With that, of course, many people have come and spoken to us about the necessity of clearly recognizing first nations' self-government and a whole list of other matters.
My question is if you might share with us whether you as a representative of this particular committee are looking at the different scenarios that Quebec may undertake with a view to seeing how your negotiating position may be changing. For instance, Treaty 9, correct me, does that not traverse two borders, for instance, Ontario and Quebec?
Mr Cheechoo: No.
Mr Offer: No, it does not, but is there something you will be looking at in terms of what Quebec does and how it might impact on who and when and how you negotiate?
Mr Cheechoo: I think that is a question that could better be answered by the native politicians who are dealing with those kinds of issues. I am just a representative of a native citizens' committee, and the reason that that native citizens' committee came about was as a result of a provincial requirement on another matter that we are involved in, dealing with the anti-drug strategy in the province of Ontario. In order for us to be involved there we formed this native citizens' committee to deal with that. We heard about these hearings and decided just to flow right in and make a presentation to your committee. We are not involved in any areas politically. I am just voicing my own individual ideas and our committee is making these recommendations to you.
For the other issue, I think I would leave it rather to the native politicians to deal with that with the government.
Mr Offer: Thank you and thank you for your presentation as it goes again through some very specific recommendations.
RAYMOND DESROSIERS
The Chair: Could I call next Raymond Desrosiers?
M. Desrosiers: Je me présente ce soir à titre personnel. Cher Président, chers membres de la commission, il me fait un grand plaisir d'être parmi vous ce soir. Il me paraît ainsi qu'il y a une lueur d'espoir pour la francophonie ontarienne. Malheureusement, le tout me peine aussi énormément que nous voilà encore obligés de justifier notre présence, notre existence, notre survie même.
Cette courte présentation est pour moi une chose assez difficile. J'ai été il y a environ 18 ans un produit d'assimilation. Je suis né à Iroquois Falls en Ontario, où la population est bilingue et puis c'est assez difficile de garder sa langue et sa culture lorsqu'on est quand même une minorité.
C'est par une crise d'identité et un effort continu que j'ai pu reconnaître la richesse des deux langues. Alors pour moi, un Ontario bilingue est une affaire de coeur.
Je suis le père de trois beaux enfants. Avec mon épouse nous tentons de renforcer chez eux une prise de conscience, de fierté, de tolérance et d'acceptation de toutes les races qui cohabitant ensemble. Ils sont à la fois francophones, Ontariens et Canadiens. Leur langue, leur culture et leur coeur sont francophones et nous voulons, comme de raison, qu'ils deviennent des adultes responsables et fiefs. Mais nous ne voulons pas qu'ils soient obligés de se battre constamment pour tour langue et leur culture. Nous ne voulons pas qu'ils se fassent dire: «Speak white» ou de déménager au Québec s'ils veulent parler français. Nous voulons qu'ils respectent les autres et qu'ils soient respectés pour qui ils sont. Il est difficile de garder chez eux cet esprit innocent et tolérant lorsqu'ils nous demandent pourquoi ils se font appeler «stupid frogs» ou «dumb Frenchies» sur l'autobus par des enfants de six à treize ans. Je reconnais qu'il y aura toujours du monde naif, ignorant et préjugé, mais comme peuple et comme province nous devons agir et non settlement réagir.
La situation de Sault-Sainte-Marie de janvier 1990 était déplorable et abominable. Ce qui était désastreux a été le manque de leadership qu'ont démontré les deux paliers gouvernementaux face à cette intolérance. Hier, c'étaient les francophones à Sault-Sainte-Marie, et depuis toujours on sait que ça a été contre les autochtones. C'est le temps d'agir. Ne permettons plus à une autre génération de subir ces injustices. Agissons aujourd'hui. Pour nos enfants c'est le coeur qui prime. Leur coeur fragile, leur innocence et leur foi sont entre vos mains. D'ici quelques années, ce ne sera plus seulement leur coeur qui va réagir, mais aussi leur tête. Alors c'est aussi une affaire de tête.
Cette nouvelle génération devra pouvoir se justifier auprès de ses pairs. Elle devra défendre son héritage, sa langue, sa culture, et ceci à maintes reprises. Cette jeunesse croit encore que la justice domine et cette justice est créée par des gens dans les postes de pouvoir. Pour eux, le gouvernement est un organisme à défendre le bien contre le mal.
Nous développons chez eux une appartenance et nous leur disons que nos membres élus sauront faire ce qui est bien. Ces gens sauront t'aider à t'épanouir, à devenir un être total. Ils te permettront de t'éduquer en français de la maternelle jusqu'au stage collégial ou universitaire. Ils sont, eux, des gens tolérants, raisonnables et droits. Pour des jeunes de cinq à dix ans vous êtes leur protecteur. C'est logique, vous êtes les élus, les modèles de notre société. Vous pouvez, si vous le voulez, garantir des droits simplement parce que c'est bien. C'est bien de protéger les autres, c'est bien de prêcher et d'agir contre l'intolérance. Je n'ai pas dit que c'est facile, mais bien. Notre jeunesse a besoin de découvrir ce que leurs parents ont perdu. C'est important, même primordial, qu'ils aient confiance aux gens élus pour les protéger. Pour eux c'est logique, c'est simple, c'est aussi une affaire d'esprit.
J'utilise ici le mot «esprit» dans le sens de courage. Le courage est une vertu enviable que nous souhaitons en toutes circonstances aux gens qui nous sont chers. Le courage, je crois, vient de nos convictions personnelles, de notre héritage et de notre milieu social. Nous avons tous à prendre des décisions qui ne sont pas populaires mais qui sont pour le bien de tous, et même dans certains cas pour le bien d'un peu.
Comme père de famille, nous élevons nos enfants avec amour, justice et droiture. Nous devons, à quelques reprises, châtier même si cela nous crève le coeur, mais nous le faisons pour le bien de l'autre, à long terme. Souvent on voit le mépris dans les yeux de ceux qu'on aime, mais nous savons que le tout était juste. Ce serait si facile de dire: «Fais ce que tu veux et vis avec les conséquences». Cela est trop facile.
1850
Notre situation actuelle en Ontario ressemble invariablement à une situation de famille. Ce sont dans certains cas de petites chicanes de famille, mais si nous hésitons trop longtemps avant d'agir, le tout pourrait prendre un virage pour le pire. Nous sommes rendus trop loin pour abandonner la lutte. Il faut avoir le courage de nos convictions. N'est-ce pas pour cela que nous sommes ici ce soir ? Ainsi, un Ontario courageux qui fonce devant est aussi une affaire d'esprit.
En conclusion, comme vous l'avez sans doute remarqué, je n'ai pas parlé des minorités, d'argent ni de méthodes administratives. J'aimerais, du plus profond de mon coeur, de ma tête et de mon esprit, oublier les concepts de minorités. Les anglophones, les francophones, les autochtones, les Italiens etc sont tous des gens qui ont des besoins, des aspirations et qui demandent au gouvernement de reconnaître leurs droits et leur survie.
Malheureusement, je suis ici surtout comme père de famille et je n'avais que quelques précieuses minutes pour partager avec vous mes sentiments les plus sincères. La question d'argent et d'administration est mieux laissée aux experts.
Tout ceci est probablement du déjà-vu pour vous, ou même du déjà-entendu. Je crois sincèrement que l'Ontario doit accepter un rôle de leadership dans ce pays. Avant de prêcher aux Québécois comment répondre aux besoins de la population anglophone, l'Ontario doit faire un geste concret: reconnaître sa propre population.
L'Ontario doit résoudre les disputes avec les Amérindiens et pour toujours trancher la question du bilinguisme. Pour moi c'est simple. C'est plus qu'une affaire de coeur, de tête ou d'esprit, c'est la survie. Pas de solutions-pansements, s'il vous plaît. Un Ontario bilingue serait non seulement un geste symbolique, mais aussi une affirmation que nous n'accepterons plus d'intolérance. Je compte sur vous, mes enfants comptent sur vous.
J'aurais quelques recommandations précises: que l'Ontario démontre un rôle de leadership en se déclarant officiellement bilingue ; que l'Ontario établisse un réseau d'institutions postsecondaires en français, tant au niveau collégial qu'au niveau universitaire ; que l'Ontario abandonne sa philosophie de groupe minoritaire et qu'il traite sa population également ; que l'Ontario exprime franchement et clairement par des actions concrètes qu'il ne tolère pas cette vague d'intolérance qui existe présentement. Merci.
M. le Président: Merci, Monsieur Desrosiers. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ?
M. Beer: Je pense que ça peut être utile. Surtout à la fin vous avez parlé d'une période d'intolérance qui existe actuellement, si je comprends bien. Je me demande si selon vous, depuis deux, trois, quatre ans vous avez remarqué des changements. Vous avez dit qu'il y a intolérance maintenant, mais n'y a-t-il pas quand même des changements positifs dans la vie des francophones dans la province au point de vue de la mise en vigueur de la Loi 8, des changements dans le domaine de l'éducation, ou est-ce que là vous parlez plutôt des réactions de certains groupes d'anglophones aux francophones ?
M. Desrosiers: Je parle un peu des deux. Je crois que, dernièrement, surtout depuis l'échec du Lac Meech, les francophones ont assez d'efforts à faire beaucoup plus. Si je parle de la Loi 8, par exemple, qu'est-ce qui était un peu injuste de la Loi 8 ? On s'est fait dire à maintes reprises: «Use it or lose it ».
Ça, ce n'est pas une garantie de nos droits. Je crois qu'il est injuste de la part du gouvernement de nous dire: «Utilise-le ou tu vas le perdre». Ce n'est pas une garantie.
M. Beer: Qui a dit cela ?
M. Desrosiers: Ça a été dit à plusieurs reprises, je crois, dans les conférences de presse ; je ne peux pas citer exactement.
M. Beer: Vous voulez dire les gouvernements ?
M. Desrosiers: Je ne sais pas si c'est officiel du gouvernement mais je crois que oui.
M. Beer: Ça me surprend.
The Chair: Okay. Other questions? Mr Malkowski?
Mr Malkowski: I am wondering if you think it is vital for Ontario to take a first step in officially recognizing bilingualism, and if that will have more of a positive impact in the Franco-Ontario community.
M. Desrosiers: Je crois que oui. Je crois que l'Ontario doit se montrer le leader dans le pays maintenant. Nous devons, par nos gestes et pas seulement par nos paroles, agir et démontrer à la population de tout le pays que nous croyons au bilinguisme, que nous croyons que les francophones, les anglophones, les autochtones, tout le monde a des droits. On parle de deux langues officielles, mais je crois que c'est important de s'affirmer et de lâcher d'en parler, de trancher la question pour une fois et toutes. Une fois que c'est officielle, une fois que les droits sont reconnus, je crois qu'on peut commencer à réparer les dommages.
Mr Malkowski: As a supplementary, did you mention not only bilingual but more of a multicultural aspect such as inclusion of native, francophone and anglophone being recognized as official languages? Did I hear you right?
M. Desrosiers: Non, j'ai dit les deux langues officielles, bilinguisme, mais je crois que nous devons reconnaître quand même le droit de toute la population et arrêter de parler des minorités, parce que lorsqu'on parle de minorités on parle un peu de segregation si on le veut.
DAVID BELL
Mr Bell: Prior to my briefing, I would like to thank the committee for coming to North Bay to hear its citizens comment on Ontario in Confederation. The committee is making every effort to hear as many Ontarians as possible in a restricted time period, not limiting itself to mayors and group representatives, but also hearing ordinary voting citizens of the province, high school students like myself included. I respect this committee's mandate, appreciate the efforts of its members and thank them for the opportunity to speak today.
It appeared nothing less than a miracle: 11 first ministers in agreement on a solution to the constitutional impass. Our leaders exited a closed meeting in 1987 and dictated to us the future of Canada in the Meech Lake accord. Canadians had had no opportunity to share their insights on constitutional reform and no chance to voice any of their concerns. Eleven first ministers avoiding media attention and public scrutiny was hardly a way of keeping a nation together. Democracy did not even present itself in the negotiations at Meech Lake, let alone flourish. The Ontario government must learn from past errors at the bargaining table to ensure that any future constitutional reforms are properly debated and properly understood before they are implemented.
The "distinct society" clause of Meech Lake should not be considered in any further constitutional negotiations because of its costs. By identifying Quebec as a distinct society and specifying that the role of the Quebec National Assembly is to "preserve and promote" the province's distinctiveness, the Supreme Court would be interpreting two Canadas, one for Quebec, another for the rest of Canada. This would be nothing less than two solitudes and two Canadas. As I see it, distinctiveness implies superiority and conflicts with the principle that everyone is equal. The message in the Constitution would be a contradiction. It already acknowledges that everyone is equal. By adding an interpretative "distinct society" clause, it would extend the definition to, "Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others," and this is unacceptable.
Ontario's leaders must not surrender to ultimatums which allow no compromise, nor should they sacrifice everything to keep the country as it is today. In this context, I am again referring to the province of Quebec. Ontario can only do so much praising to make Quebeckers feel wanted. If Quebec leaves, a member of the Canadian family is lost. Notwithstanding all the turmoil and social casts such an action would bring, Canada, if it continues to maintain a federal system of government, will survive and progress. The provincial government must understand that better ways exist to preserve a country and amend the Constitution. Giving in to blackmail must never be one of them.
1900
A serious problem already exists in Canada's Constitution: section 33, known as the "notwithstanding" clause. It stands to reduce everyone's rights; the federal and provincial governments can limit some of the most fundamental liberties that are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The "notwithstanding" clause makes our Constitution worthless. The provincial and federal governments almost arbitrarily can stomp on the rights of Canadians. The Ontario government should rally to remove this threatening clause in any further constitutional negotiations and show its commitment by banning its use in the Ontario Legislature.
One man who spoke to this committee in Sault Ste Marie feared that a race in Canada may face treatment similar to the Jews of Europe during the Second World War. In reality, a holocaust of sorts has already occurred in Canada. Our ancestors directly and indirectly supported the brutal treatment of Canada's natives. Throughout Canada, Europeans disregarded native rights to the band, forced them on to reserves, attempted to assimilate them -- the list goes on.
Canadian governments can and should do something. As fan as financial compensation is concerned, there is no pricetag; it is immeasurable. Compensation can originate from another outlet, the recognition of the native peoples in the Constitution. The underlying theme of the current Constitution is that two nations founded Canada, England and France. In layman's terms, this statement is a lie. Canada's Constitution is incomplete until it recognizes the three founding nations of Canada. The governments of Canada must reaffirm their commitment to native self-government and act on their promises. Native self-government is not a privilege but a fundamental right. Whether it currently recognizes this in the Constitution is secondary -- it should.
Due to time, I will quickly move into my discussion on official unilingualism, an all-too-common municipal declaration for 1990. The actions of countless Ontario municipal councils are unjustified, unnecessary and deeply regrettable. The declarations are in response to Ontario's Bill 8. Bill 8 has no bearing on municipal services in the least. Official unilingualism declarations only make francophones and minority groups in Ontario feel alienated and send a message to Quebec that Ontarians are racist. Extremists in Ontario, no doubt a small minority, are hiding the truth in a bed of lies and are receiving much attention in the process.
Not all Ontarians are racist. Only a tiny minority, verbally or literally, find amusement in stepping on the fleur-de-lis. One speaker who appeared before this committee in Sault Ste Marie outlined the principle that you come to Canada to become Canadian. Unfortunately for her, we are not a melting pot. We never have been. She and the Sault's mayor Fratresi know where they can go to find the melting pot, the inordinant worshipping of the flag and the Super Bowl game, which leaves the rest of us. The concept of multiculturalism in Canada is older than Confederation. The vision in this woman's head conflicts with hundreds of years of Canadian history.
Rejecting our multicultural heritage would be ignoring the vital contributions of the broad spectrum of cultural groups to the development of this country and their important role in establishing our national identity. This country requires tolerance and unity in order to survive. Ontario and Canada need strong leaders, leaders who listen to the people and leaders who act on what they say. The principle of one Canada must be maintained and never sacrificed at the bargaining table. Before entering into further constitutional negotiations, the Ontario government must reject the idea of a Canadian confederacy and reaffirm its commitment to one Canada.
I would like to conclude with a proposed preamble to the Constitution Act, suggested by Pierre Trudeau and vetoed by the provinces. In my opinion, it is nothing short of poetry, and actually inspired me to speak before this committee. It states:
"We, the people of Canada, proudly proclaim that we are and shall always be, with the help a God, a free and self-governing people.
"Born of a meeting of the English and French presence on North American soil which had long been the home of our native peoples, and enriched by the contribution of millions of people from the four corners of the earth, we have chosen to create a life together which transcends the differences of blood relationships, language and religion, and willingly accept the experience of sharing our wealth and cultures, while respecting our diversity."
This is my vision of Canada. Word for word, it is the kind of "Canada" clause I want written in the Constitution. "There is so much good in Canada," says Sinclair Ross, "and you always throw it away." Let us not throw away what could be our last chance for one Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I think there are a couple of questions, but let me, on behalf of the committee, express to you again, as we have done a number of times when young people have spoken to us, appreciation for the clarity with which you have expressed yourself. I think it bodes well for all of us.
Mr Bisson: I appreciate your presentation. One of the things you said, and I have to agree, is that not very many of us believe this country is -- the term being used is "racist," that people out there, on one side or other of the issue, are of that persuasion. I think that is a very small minority; I agree with you.
But one of the difficulties we have, quite frankly, is that there is a lot of rhetoric in this debate. When we talk about the distinct society or bilingualism there is a lot of rhetoric. It seems to me, as an observer at this point, that we need to somehow remove that rhetoric so we can finally sit down as a people, we as Canadians, and try to come to some sort of understanding, trying to meet some of Quebec's aspirations, if that is what we decide to do at the end, or go whatever.
I am wondering what you have to suggest with regard to being able to do that, as a younger person in our society. What needs to be done to finally get people in this country, once and for all, to sit down and speak about this issue in a very rational manner, taking away the façade of all the very strong comments that are made on both sides of the issue?
Mr Bell: It is a passionate issue, but I think it is very difficult for anyone, especially my age, to have an opinion because of all the rhetoric: "notwithstanding" clauses, "Canada" clauses. They are all terms I have difficulty understanding, and it took me quite some time to understand. I think we should go away from examining the Constitution and examine what is important to us as Canadians and then write it down, not writing it down in glamorous legal terms so that no one can understand it. I think it is important that a Constitution, which is so important to a country, should be understood by the electorate, not just by an elite group.
Mr Bisson: But specifically what I am getting at is the rhetoric around the issue, because there are people who feel certain things on both sides of the issue and they are quite valid in their perspective, from where they are standing. When I talk about rhetoric, I mean the rhetoric utilized by some of us sometimes, not on the technical end of wording in the Constitution but how we label each other. Somehow we have to remove those labels to be able to get to the issue, and that is where I was trying to --
Mr Bell: Name calling, things like that?
Mr Bisson: Yes, because there was some of it used in here, and that is what I was alluding to. Is there a way we can get rid of that?
Mr Bell: What examples of rhetoric in my --
Mr Bisson: Some of the labels we utilize sometimes is that Quebec is a cry-baby, or anglophones are being racist if we say we have problems with bilingualism. How do we get rid of some of that rhetoric to get to the issue?
Mr Bell: More committees like these, that are advertised, so we can get people from both sides of the issue instead of name-cabling; to not yell at each other but listen to each other's arguments and perhaps make a compromise. Compromises are so important. Ultimatums are dangerous, and I have stated that the Ontario government should refuse ultimatums.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are going to have to move on to other speakers.
1910
JOHN LUTES
The Chair: Could I call John Lutes?
Mr Lutes: I would like to begin by congratulating Gary Malkowski on his election. I think it is tremendous that there is now a deaf MPP, someone in the Ontario Legislative Assembly who represents the interests of not only the deaf but also the hard-of-hearing. My presentation tonight is about the hard-of-hearing, and I am speaking as an individual consumer.
You may be aware that about 10% of the population in Canada has a hearing loss. Of that population approximately 90% are hard-of-hearing, and this proportion is going to increase rapidly. I say that because, as we all know, there is a rapid increase in the proportion of the aging population of senior citizens. Fifty per cent of senior citizens 60 and over have a significant hearing loss. In addition, there is another cause for the rapid increase in the number of people who are hard-of-hearing, that is, the noise level in the environment, both industrial and recreational.
Let me give you a little background about the hard-of-hearing. The hard-of-hearing are a marginal group in society. They are neither deaf nor have normal hearing. We do not sign and we are not pant of the deaf culture. Even though we function in the hearing world, we are on the fringe because we cannot hear normally. It is really well known that the hard-of-hearing tend to be isolated from the mainstream of society. Thus, we are caught in the middle, between these two worlds, between the deaf world and the normal hearing world.
Hearing impairment is an invisible disability, and hard-of-hearing people do not generally reveal themselves. Being hard-of-hearing somehow seems less dramatic and hardly disabling, certainly more hidden than being deaf. Normal-hearing people seem to believe that someone with any degree of hearing loss is deaf or that they simply cannot hear, and they lump everyone with a hearing loss into the same boat. To illustrate, the hard-of-hearing are often referred to as deaf, deafened, oral deaf, partly deaf, going deaf, stone deaf or even hearing-impaired. They are rarely referred to with the term or label we prefer: "hard-of-hearing." Our choice of the term "hard-of hearing" is illustrated in the name of our national consumer organization, namely, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association.
It is really frustrating to be hard-of-hearing. You constantly wonder if you heard or understood what was said. It is lonely a lot of the time, and to feel isolated from other people is really not a very good feeling. To be hard-of hearing is to have a disability of communication, and the very nature of hearing loss is that it affects human contact and participation with others. Hearing is that vital sense which enables people to comprehend the thoughts, ideas and feelings conveyed through speech. But when an individual suffers a hearing loss, the ability to understand accurately what others say is adversely affected. Thus, conversation, that all-important link between people in the hearing world, is often misunderstood, distorted and even lost.
We listen in context and frequently misunderstand what is said, and it is really no wonder that hard-of-hearing people are sometimes left out and on the fringe or on the outside looking in. I would like now to give you a personal example to illustrate this sense of being on the fringe. On 1 July 1990 I attended, for the first time, Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa, mainly because they were finally accessible. They were accessible to deaf people through American sign language and langue des signos québécoise, plus oral interpreters in English and French in an FM system. I was able to use the FM system and hear.
Since I was a young child I have been attending public ceremonies like Remembrance Day, cub and scout parades, political rallies, concerts and other similar functions. However, I could never fully understand what was said because of my congenital hearing loss. But that was not the case on Parliament Hill on 1 July. For the first time in my life I could hear every speaker, every word that was said. In fact, the FM signal was so clear that I could even distinguish the instruments of the RCMP band. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think this would be possible.
I was so moved by this experience that when the proceedings began, tears began to run down my cheeks and I could not stop them. They just kept going. Of course, being a male and being in public with thousands of people around, I was embarrassed and I kept wiping the tears away, but they kept coming. I really did not understand what was happening to me. It was only later that I realized that I was crying because of the sorrow from all the years of attending countless numbers of activities in large groups and not being able to hear and feeling left out. And I cried in joy because, for the first time, I felt part of a public ceremony simply because I could hear. In order to feel fully Canadian in that one instance -- I felt that because I could hear.
When we think of the impact of hearing loss, it is usually about the impact on people with a severe or a profound loss. However -- I really want to stress this -- people with even a mild loss, let alone a moderate one, like myself, we are affected too. It does have an impact on us; at least in my experience, it does. So after 51 years, I finally felt a complete part of a Canada Day celebration, and therefore my sense of identity as a Canadian was fulfilled. To me, that is what access is all about. Without access, hard-of-hearing people are denied the right to participation and therefore we are really denied the right to full citizenship.
How can we overcome the barriers that exist between us and the normal hearing world? Here are a few things that I think ought to be done before hard-of-hearing people will be on an equal footing with everyone else.
First, that we ensure that every hard-of-hearing person who needs a hearing aid or hearing aids or assistive listening devices receives them. In the province of Ontario, we have what is called ADP, the assistive devices program, but that is not a universal program. It is kind of a patchwork program. For example, it pays only 75% of the cost of the minimum model of hearing aid, first. Second, it only pays that portion of one hearing aid, so if you need two, it is rather like needing a pair of glasses, one lens for each eye, and being told that it is recognized that one lens will do. There is that aspect of it, so I am recommending that a universal program be set in place.
Second, that a licensing board replace the current monitoring board in the province of Ontario to regulate and oversee professional practice and hearing aid vendors, thus ensuring a high quality and uniform standards.
Third, that we ensure that the environment is adapted so that it is not partially accessible but fully accessible. This means that only public facilities but places of employment as well. All places that are part of daily living ought to be accessible to us. Ontario can demonstrate some leadership here and ensure that all services delivered by the government of Ontario are accessible, not just the buildings but that the people providing the service are aware of hearing impairment and know how to relate, not only to hard-of-hearing people but to deaf people as well.
This evening, these presentations are not accessible to deaf and severely hard-of-hearing people who are watching this on television. We have sign language interpretation for Gary, but that is not distinguishable on television, nor is there an instantaneous captioning so that people can read the proceedings as they are happening. So this is an illustration. In addition to that, there is an infrared system here, and that system is available for French and English translation. I could have used the system, except that the adaptive device was not available so I had difficulty hearing some of the comments that were made. So I think we need to be thinking in terms of full accessibility and not partial accessibility.
Fourth, that the education system make the necessary adjustments -- and note I am saying the education system make the necessary adjustments, not the hard-of-hearing students -- so that achievement by hard-of-hearing students will be similar to that of normal hearing students. That is far from the case now. I refer you to the very recent report of the educational review for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Ontario, and I would also like to make the point that as an employee of Canadore College and a student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, I recognize that there certainly is a significant level of underfunding for special needs in the colleges and universities in Ontario and I would bike to recommend that this be reviewed and adjusted.
1920
Fifth, in the whole area of employment, in my experience, large numbers of hard-of-hearing people are underemployed, and I am encouraged by the comments regarding employment equity.
Sixth, that oral interpretation be officially recognized and that programs be established to train oral interpreters in Ontario. Just as there is a desperate need for sign language interpreters for the deaf, there is also a similar kind of need for oral interpreters for those who have a profound hearing loss and rely on lip-reading or speech-reading as their means to understand.
Seventh, that a disability training unit be established within the civil service with a mandate to orient provincial government employees about disabilities, and to train them how to relate to disabled persons, including the deaf and the hard-of-hearing.
The last recommendation I want to make to you is about noise. Noise is a major cause of hearing loss and it is permanent and irreversible both in industries and in recreational use. If any of you spend a lot of time with a chainsaw or sitting on a skidoo, then you are in for a noise-induced hearing loss.
I think there are three things that the province can do. One is to amend the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act so that the maximum allowable noise level in the workplace is 85 decibels and not 90, as is currently the case. The international accepted standard is 85 decibels. Another is to establish suitable regulations governing the noise level of manufactured products sold in Ontario, whether they are for industrial, recreational or home use. Third is to embark on a major, province-wide educational program about the risk of noise. I do not think people realize the impact and the extent to which noise exists in the society and the impact that it has on hearing loss.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present my views.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lutes. I will allow one question, Mr Malkowski, if we are brief, and with the answer as well, because we are beyond the time already.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you, John, for that excellent and very inclusive presentation you made about the hard-of-hearing situation. If you would not mind just briefly commenting about the rights of hard-of-hearing children as they relate to, let's say, cochlear implants, and as well, if you could also talk a little about the educational system and the isolation that a hard-of-hearing individual might feel in that system and how one might get to the parents in terms of resources. Could you talk a little bit about that, please?
Mr Lutes: Would you repeat the second part of the question, please?
Mr Malkowski: You want the last part?
Mr Lutes: Yes, about education.
Mr Malkowski: I was just wondering what kind of help parents might have if they have a hard-of-hearing child in the system. How we could get information and resources to the parents? They often are missing that kind of information to make appropriate educational decisions for their children. If you could talk a little bit about that.
Mr Lutes: Right. I am not the best one to speak about that, because my experience is as a hard-of-hearing individual and I have not been the parent of a hard-of-hearing child. But it is something that I have thought about once in a while.
One of the issues, of course, is the whole issue of choice, whether the child with a severe or profound hearing loss ought to adopt the signing route and become part of the deaf culture or whether the child ought to opt for -- whether the parents of the child ought to opt for the oral route; that is, speaking only. It has been an issue of grave concern for a very long time.
I have thought about it a great deal and it just seems to me to make sense that a child who has a profound hearing loss ought to be able to learn sign language as a first language first, following which learn how to speak as best as possible. I have been exposed to quite a number of young people whose parents have decided they should go the oral route. some of them have done remarkably well and are able to articulate and speak well without difficulty. However, there are quite a number of others who do not learn to speak such that they can be understood well by others. When that is the case, of course, it affects their level of education and it affects their ability to have employment.
I think then it is important that parents who are in a situation of having to make that choice, ought to have all the information of bath sides of the argument and present it in an objective way. I do not know how that is done, Gary, but that is my feeling about it.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lutes.
WOMEN'S ACTION COMMITTEE OF NIPISSING
The Chair: Could I call next Pam Alcorn and Marie Marchand from the Women's Action Committee of Nipissing.
Ms Alcorn: Good evening. I am Pam Alcorn and I am speaking as a member of the Women's Action Committee of Nipissing. The Women's Action Committee of Nipissing was founded in July 1989. Women's groups and individual women continued networking following a meeting with the Ontario women's directorate. In December 1990 we adopted the following mission statement:
"To promote the empowerment and status of women in Nipissing district through the elimination of barriers to the full participation of women in all spheres -- economic, social and political."
I would like to begin by acknowledging that my own experience working with groups in a democratic process causes me to realize how difficult it is to share a vision of the way things can be. I have been involved with women's issues and women's organizations since 1984. I have became increasingly involved in women's groups on a local and provincial level, mostly addressing the issue of male violence against women. I am here trying to share my vision of our future with my fellow and sister Ontarians and Canadians.
I first learned of this meeting last week as a result of a phone call from this committee's consultant on women's issues. The next day, I arranged to have a copy of the discussion paper Changing for the Better: An Invitation to Talk about a New Canada forwarded to me. I was told, however, it would take seven to 10 days to get here. That would have brought me past this point. Luckily, a copy arrived at my place of employment on Friday. As a result, I am not able or prepared to give any great depth to this discussion. I will, however, refer specifically to a couple of statements contained in the public discussion paper as I make my points.
To begin with, page 23 states: "Your reflections as a citizen of Canada and a resident of Ontario are vital. Your voice needs to be heard."
Ms Marchand: My name is Marie Marchand. I am the secretary of the Women's Action Committee of Nipissing, and I am also the project co-ordination for the two-year women's demonstration project entitled Women's Access to Apprenticeship Training, funded by the Ministry of Skills Development and the Ontario women's directorate.
I would like to add my welcome to the members of the committee to our community. I am pleased to see that you had the good fortune of choosing northern Ontario as the first step for these hearings, allowing us to set the tone.
Pour ceux d'entre vous qui sont d'expression française, je vous souhaite la bienvenue. Je vous dis bienvenue, surtout que cette semaine est notre Carnaval et semaine française, et je suppose que malheureusement vous n'avez pas l'occasion ni le temps de fêter avec nous.
Mr Malkowski I am particularly pleased to see. I wish I had known you were going to be here so that I would have had an opportunity to at least learn a few symbols to tell you that I am indeed very pleased to have you here in our community.
Perhaps it is also auspicious that we are making our voices heard as women on the day before Equality Eve: 14 February is the 10th anniversary recognizing the fact that more than 1,000 women went to Ottawa to pressure the government to ensure that equal rights were firmly entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. We hasten to add, however, that we also have other anniversaries. As women, we also remember 6 December 1989.
You are thinking about keeping the country together; we think about walking the streets in safety. You want to celebrate our differences; we would like to celebrate the end of sexism and violence against women and children.
1930
We received the invitation to take an active part in these meetings late. The letter from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues urging us to take the necessary step to bring "our own perspective" to these public debates was dated 31 January, for meetings which began in the north on 4 February. I saw the public discussion paper for the first time yesterday. While we appreciate the invitation to join with you in discussing a new Canada, please bear in mind that we have not had the luxury of sitting down quietly to gather our thoughts on these vital issues. Yet, we cannot remain silent. We realize all too well that silence is our nemesis.
As women, we definitely want a just and honourable peace in the Gulf. We want to be tolerant and caring. We want to compete in the global economy. We want the federal and provincial governments to play fair and be true partners. We want quality of life, justice and self-government for our first nations. We want our second and third nations to speak with one voice in their respective languages. We want our sisters and brothers in Quebec to stay with us as part of one family. We want the west, the north, the Atlantic region to feel they share the same opportunities that we do here in Ontario, and we also believe this is what many others in Ontario want.
Certainly to achieve any one of the above requires substantial change, so while we realize that the original plan is basically to drain the swamp, we are so busy fighting alligators that we may lose sight of the cosmic picture.
Ms Alcorn: We agree that our voices must be heard, but we are sceptical and we are cynical. Perhaps a brief history of the issues facing the women of this community at a federal, provincial and local level will help explain why we are unable to speak in this forum in a formal manner and why we are unable to address specific constitutional issues as women of Canada.
Meech Lake: Women who opposed this as a constitutional option were often accused of being anti-French. In fact, many women shared concerns raised by native groups that our rights would not be enshrined in this formula.
March 1990, the federal budget cuts to women's and native programs: Women's groups are underfunded. Page 7 of the discussion paper reads: "In response to the growing appreciation of the demands of justice and equality between men and women, the Charter also prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and asserts that charter rights are guaranteed equally to people of both sexes."
While the legal barriers to women's active participation as Canadians are being removed, other more insidious barriers are popping up. Funding cuts to already underfunded women's programs and women's services make it almost impossible for women to adequately and effectively address these obstacles. Our guaranteed equality thus far is on paper only.
As citizens of Ontario, we are witnessing changes -- more women in government, more women on judicial benches, more women on provincial committees. This trend must continue until the power is balanced. This trend must extend beyond party lines and beyond provincial lines. We are still at risk, however. The Askov decision and the actions of some courts to stay the prosecution of sexual assault cases is an example. This is unacceptable. This goes against a long, difficult struggle which many women have faced to finally have the criminal justice system treat sexual assault as the serious crime we know it to be. Survivors of sexual assault usually fear that their complaint will not be taken seriously. Throwing out these cases only reinforces those fears. Women, again, are compromised.
At a local level, women have been reacting to many issues and in general our experiences have been unsuccessful at best and life threatening at worst. Example: the live pornography industry. When women have tried to address this industry as one many of us know to be harmful either directly or indirectly to women, we were publicly ridiculed by local journalists and, during a civic meeting, by politicians and the general public as well. What happens to our freedom of expression, our freedom to safety of person, our rights to equality?
Another example: North Bay has recently experienced the convictions of sexual assault of one long-time high school teacher and one influential paediatrician. While the teacher is serving a jail term, the paediatrician continues to practise in both hospitals awaiting an appeal of the conviction. Despite many concerns raised by various members of our community, the message to victims of sexual assault of this type is clear by the lack of response from our medical community. The safety of female children is expendable.
Example: North Bay has yet to receive funding to adequately address the lack of services for sexual assault survivors. Even though a community proposal has been submitted to the Ministry of Health, the funding available is not adequate. $65,000 a year does not adequately address the growing needs of the increasing number of women who tell us they have been sexually assaulted.
At a time when the federal government is dismantling our national railway and slashing the budget of the CBC, the national public broadcasting system, which can only result in isolating Canadians farther from one another, we, the citizens of Ontario, must join hands. We must come together in a way that includes every citizen of our province to achieve a true consultative process in realizing our future.
I applaud our new government's initial efforts to begin the exchange of ideas, but we must recognize that this is only the beginning. True communication and consultation will require many more meetings. We will be interested in expanding on those ideas and issues so that we can do more than merely scratch the surface. We will remind the government as often as necessary that the consultative process is one that is animate, not stagnant; it needs feeding in order to grow.
Ms Marchand: Confederation is the state of being together. You have just heard some of the issues that Pam and I feel we face as women. We recognize also, however, that we are before you as white, middle-class individuals. We do not pretend to speak for all women, but we feel safe in telling you that all women, and hopefully everyone, want to be equal socially and economically, not almost equal. This cannot be achieved through the intolerance that we, as women, see directed towards us and also the intolerance directed at so many others as well.
As a society, we seem to have lost the will to care for each other and also to take care of each other. The elements required for a true partnership are missing: the shared goals and objectives, the interests of all being fairly represented, the sharing of knowledge between and among family members, the need for clearly specified roles and responsibilities.
We can tell you that as women we are always watching our backs. We keep chipping away at society's attitudes to cries of: "Oh yeah? Well prove it to me," and then when we do, "Sorry, I just do not believe you." We may win an argument here and there, but the real victories are few and far between and these so-called victories are constantly being challenged even after they have been achieved at such a high price. We keep finding ourselves back to square one.
Our vision: Do we have the right to be safe in our home, at work, in the street? Yes, we do. Do we have the right to speak out and not be silenced by people whose list of intimidation tactics is endless? Yes, we do. Do we have the right to sit at the decision table, any decision table? Yes, we do.
Ms Churley: Thank you very much for coming out tonight to speak to us, especially considering after the short notice. That was the difficulty we had. We chose to go to the north first, but of course you are the most disadvantaged in that you do not get the booklet and the time to prepare, but we have discovered that people have given, in many ways, more presentations from the heart, which means that we have received a lot of discussion around our value system.
You mentioned that tomorrow night is -- you explained it and I know I do not have time to go into it -- Equality Eve, and that women are getting together all over Canada for dinner tomorrow, and of course I will be missing mine in Toronto.
I know that I have been talking to some women in Toronto who were involved 10 years ago and who tried to get involved in Meech and were shut out, as you mentioned. The fears now are around that even if a new constitution includes equality for women, there could be problems with social cutbacks on equal social benefits, etc., which of course really affect women and children. I am just wondering if you have had a chance to think about that and talk to other women about that yet. My sense is, and I know that I as a woman, beyond this committee have not really figured out yet my role and our role in this process as women and how we can make sure that we are involved at the table this time, beyond these discussions at committees.
1940
Ms Alcorn: I think one of the things we have to make sure of is that we are part of the consultation and women's groups -- I think we have to be listened to. We have to have a voice.
As important and as crucial as the timing is for this kind of a meeting, I do not think we can hurry the process up. If we try to hurry it up, we are not going to be heard, we are not going to be able to talk. We need the time and I know from the consultation and conversations I have had with other women that there is deep concern about what will happen to women's programs. Women's programs have historically tended to be expendable, as the recent funding cuts federally indicate or prove, underfunded at best and always at risk.
Ms Marchand: I would add to that that there is some concern we are going to go into a Meech 2 and that the gains we made 10 years ago, we may have to fight for again.
Ms Churley: So it is a step backwards.
Ms Marchand: Before we leave Ms Churley, may I simply mention that you are one of our heroes. When you were on Metro Toronto council and the stand you took against beauty pageants, some of us wrote you a letter and of course if you do not remember, we are going to be terribly disappointed. I would like to congratulate you on that stand that you took and also on getting elected.
Ms Churley: Thank you. I have to say I got a lot of letters of congratulations, but I got some real ugly hate mail as well. So I was very happy to get the many letters of congratulations and thank you for that. Of course, I remember.
Mr Beer: One of the questions ever since we got the charter in 1982, or at least one that as we move farther along -- now we are almost nine years -- has been in part -- I do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question, but I would be interested in your reflections on it. Through the charter, we seemed to put so much into constitutionally trying to protect a whole series of rights, whether it was women's, aboriginal or linguistic, and I guess one of the things we have learned is that you can put a lot into the Constitution, but that does not by itself bring nirvana. We have just been mentioning the problem of when there are cutbacks in programs and that kind of thing.
I remember being struck one time in listening to Pauline Jewett a couple of years age, who noted that on section 28, the gender equality clause, that actually there were more court cases working their way through the courts around men than there were around women. Clearly that was not the reason intended when that went in. I assume that here in North Bay and Nipissing when you were trying to work against pornography and the different things you ran into -- so we are also struggling again with attitudes.
We go forward and we look at a lot of the things that are going on and you really wonder, do we keep moving backwards despite all of these changes? How do you see that balance between what we need to try to ensure is in the Constitution and I suppose really the kind of political action that is required to change the way we do things? You just mentioned to Marilyn the issue of the beauty pageant. How do you see that? Are there specific things that here in your own community you are trying to do around attitudes? Here we are. We are legislators and we can pass all kinds of bills and what not, and I suspect the longer that one is a legislator and the more bills you pass, the less you wonder whether that always achieves the ends that supposedly you are after, because we keep coming back to this question of attitudes.
Ms Marchand: I think that was a long question, but if I --
Mr Beer: It was sort of a reflection I have been wanting to get off my chest for a while.
Ms Marchand: If I can synthesize, I hope what you are asking, how do we strike a balance between enshrining our rights in the Constitution and making sure that attitudes in society change? Fair enough?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Ms Marchand: First of all, I think they have to be enshrined in the Constitution, because if they are not stated there in black and white then it just reinforces those attitudes which already exist. My difficulty is that even though we were declared persons some years ago and we now have the right to vote and we can now get elected to Parliament or to the provincial Legislature or to the Senate, those were all steps that we had to make very slowly, but if they were not enshrined in some kind of legalese, we would not even be able to attempt to make those steps.
Second, we recognize that yes, there is a difficulty about attitudes, and that unless the political leaders who are enshrining rights in the Constitution are prepared to back it up through their own example and through their own use of the legislative process, it is useless in a situation like that. Women like us in our individual communities are trying to seek Band-Aid solutions, sort of one drop at a time, when we are not tackling the real issue at all. We are perhaps tackling a local situation in hopes of making it better, but we are not at all tackling the real problem.
As our recent difficulties here with the live pornography issue show, it took 11 months of fighting at a municipal level with no sort of -- although we made overtures to the provincial and the federal levels by writing letters to the ministers responsible for whatever, we would get these lovely letters back saying, "This is what we are doing and this is what we have done and thank you very much for your letter." Not very helpful.
Unless the legislation is backed by political leadership willing to put teeth into it, it is very ineffective because you have individuals like us in our individual communities battling sort of one battle at a time and never ever winning the war.
The Chair: I will allow one more quick question, Mr Harnick.
Mr Harnick: A very quick question: You have alluded to almost a breakdown of the deterrent effect of the criminal law generally, and I suppose more specifically as it relates to this community. You have mentioned the Askov case. We from Toronto know that we can pick up our newspapers and read the crime reports as if they are baseball scores, how many murders there were that week and how many sexual assaults. We do not expect that is happening in communities far from Metropolitan Toronto. Evidently it is. Has there been a breakdown in so far as you are concerned of the deterrent effect of the criminal law?
Ms Alcorn: I think what I was trying to refer to is that progress is beginning to be made with the criminal justice system, but it is still very much set up for the accused. So the rights of the victim are rarely considered. We can point to financial costs. That is definitely the main argument we seem to hear.
But the criminal justice system, the judicial system is not set up -- it is not a comfortable place for women at the best of times, adversarial, and so women's groups have been fighting very hard. Each government I think is trying provincially to address it, but it is not enough.
Then when we think we might be making some progress, and some communities have victim-witness programs and some crowns receive training on issues of male violence against women, we fear that these cases will start to be thrown out. The message is definitely backwards. It is definitely taking steps backwards to women. It is a clear message that, what was this, was this just momentary? Can we count on it? That is one of the biggest problems, what can we count on?
Ms Marchand: If I may just briefly add to that, one of the difficulties we have with the number of cases that are being thrown out of court is that it seems to us that there is a disproportionate number of drunk driving cases and sexual assault cases being thrown out. I do not have access to the statistics, but it just seems by looking at the media that this is what is happening.
We have a difficulty with that in the sense that it is a system that is geared to the accused. You have a defence attorney for the accused appearing before a judge who probably used to be a defence attorney as well, saying, "The rights of the accused, my client, have been violated." The judge agrees and throws it out of court. The victims are once again victims.
1950
In a local situation here with the paediatrician, we have a real live conviction and the victims are still on the losing end, because he continues to be allowed to practise, continues to have hospital privileges while he awaits his appeal, so we certainly feel that with the justice system, even though you are trying to make it better for everyone, the charter argument is being used against us.
Mr Harnick: Has North Bay been a jurisdiction where the Askov case has been a problem? Because I was not aware that North Bay had reached that level.
Ms Alcorn: No, I do not think that is what is occurring here. I think our courts are trying to speed things up. I think we need more judges appointed to deal with this, and crown attorneys definitely, to deal with this, but no, we are not in that regard. That is not one of the ones I am aware we are facing.
Ms Marchand: But there are two very recent cases in Sudbury, however, where one judge threw it out after a 17-month delay, and another judge on a sexual assault charge after a 23-month delay said, "Well, I am not going to throw it out," so there is no consistency.
Ms Alcorn: Meanwhile the women victims are wondering, "Did I go through this horrendous process this far," because most women do describe it as horrendous and I know that has been covered in the media, so there is the uncertainty and the insecurity.
Mr Harnick: I might tell you that the standing committee on administration of justice is going to be -- I think not next week, the following week -- reviewing the idea of a victims' bill of rights, which has been considered at the committee level before. Hopefully the government will now act on it once this report is prepared.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Let me just say that I think as a committee we are conscious, very much, of the concerns that you raised at the beginning of your presentation about time. We have heard that already from other groups and we take those concerns very seriously. We do not presume that in this first stage we are going to be able to touch all of the bases that we need to, but we will do our best, and we will structure in the second stage of our work after our interim report in March more concerted ways of allowing even more discussion involving the various constituencies, and obviously among those are the women of the province.
NORTH BAY PEACE ALLIANCE
NORTHWATCH
The Chair: Could I call now Brennain Lloyd from the North Bay Peace Alliance and Northwatch?
Ms Lloyd: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I am going to speak somewhat casually. I have not prepared a formal presentation. We will be submitting written comments in the near future, but with fairly short notice and with a great number of very pressing issues on the table with the organizations I work with, there was not time available to prepare a written submission for this evening.
The organizations I am speaking for this evening are two. The North Bay Peace Alliance is a local group addressing peace, disarmament and security issues at a local level, and they in turn are a member group of Northwatch, which is a coalition of environmental groups across northeastern Ontario. My comments will largely follow from the concerns of that constituency.
When I read your discussion paper, the discussion paper circulated relevant to this committee's work, I found that there were questions I wanted to ask and wanted to answer in advance of even the ones that were being put forward to us in the discussion paper. The first question was put forward to us as, "What are the values we share as Canadians?"
I think before that we have to share some common sense of what is a Canadian, and perhaps to do that we have to have a shared idea of what is a country. That is the point I would like to start from, what is a country? I would suggest that a country is a community. It is a community of communities, but it is a community. If we look at community and the concept of communities, perhaps we should look at why we have communities.
Where does that need for community come from? Where does our interest in creating community and being part of community come from? My sense of it is that it comes from a need for security, that this is our most fundamental need; our most fundamental interest is in security.
When I look at your paper I see it addresses quite repeatedly, quite consistently, questions of economic security, but I do no accept that that is the most fundamental kind of security, that that is the kind of security we crave most or that we require first and foremost.
I think there are basically three kinds of security: There is international security, which is the kind of security we look for in our foreign policies and our relationships with other communities, with other nations, with other states; there is ecological security, the kind of security we look for in protecting our environment and in environmental safeguards, ecological systems being protected and preserved; and then there is economic security. And we cannot have economic security if we do not have ecological security and we do not have international security.
It is perhaps possible, although questionable, that we could have international security without economic security, because those are such interrelated questions, that we could have ecological stability, ecological security, even if we did not have economic security.
I think there is a hierarchy in those securities, and I would certainly say that economic security, while very important to us, is not at the top of that hierarchy. So I was somewhat disturbed at the emphasis I read in this paper, with economic security given such priority and those other securities so absent. It is those two other securities I would like to speak to this evening.
When we look at the first question of international security, our situation is obvious tonight. We are at war. And when we look at the state of that war, it is heart-breaking, heart-wrenching. If we listen to the 6 o'clock news this evening we hear there were 500 people killed last night in a bunker in Baghdad, and we are told by the allied forces, these military forces we have linked arms with as Canadians, that that was a military target. But there were 500 to 1,000 civilians killed. How do those two pieces of information fit together? I would say that they do not fit together.
I think we are in a time of perhaps unparalleled insecurity internationally. We have lived with 40 years, four decades, of the cold war and all of that insecurity, and now we have moved into a new kind of insecurity. We have perhaps lessened the cold warrior stances, but our international insecurity is at its peak. For the 500 people who are being dug out of the bunker in Baghdad today, it is beyond its peak: It is death.
When we look at our international security today, we have to look at Canada's role in that international insecurity and question it and reject it. This evening before I came here we were at a peace vigil. Every Wednesday evening in North Bay we mark the war, we gather together and remember that we are at war. We have one week of war, we have two weeks of war, we have three weeks of war. We do not know how many weeks of war we will have, but we have had too many. Every Wednesday evening we gather for half an hour in the cold -- tonight very cold -- weather, and we gather because we think it is important that we mark another week of war, and that we remember what this war is about. The war is perhaps about territory, it is perhaps about oil, it is perhaps about economics, but more than anything it is about human suffering and it is about loss of life and it is about ecological disaster. That is what it is about. Every time we hear about collateral damage and every time we hear about operation this or operation that, we are forgetting what this war is about.
So when I think about what Canada is, right now I think Canada is a warrior. Canada is playing at war. It is a very dangerous game and it is an unacceptable game. So we are at war and that shadows everything. It shadows all of our self-perceptions. It has to shadow and colour all of our self-descriptions for us as Canadians, because we are at war. We are in a war we do not understand, did not choose to involve ourselves in. We were not asked as Canadians whether we wanted to be involved, and we are at war.
2000
We live in a community in North Bay where many of our friends and neighbours are in that war. Their lives are at risk, and for many people in this community it is a very difficult thing, because not for a second do we want to say we do not support our friends and neighbours and the people who are married to the people we work with and go to school with. It is a very close thing, as people from our community are there. Not for a second do we want to say we do not support them, because we do support thorn.
We support them in their right to life, we support them in their righteous quest, but we do not support our government in its decision to send them to a war. We do not believe that people in North Bay who are in that war joined the military because they wanted to go and kill people in Baghdad in a bunker sleeping at night. We do not believe that of our friends and neighbours. We think quite differently.
But we are in a very difficult situation. It is very difficult to talk about it, to express that support and caring and concern and still express that disagreement we have with our government. So when we talk about Canada and we talk about what our role is in Canada, we have so much discomfort with what Canada has become in these recent weeks. That shadows everything.
We look at our self-perception or our self-description and think: How does this fit? How does how we are behaving now fit with our self-perception and our self-description? Traditionally Canadians have seen themselves as peacemakers and as peacekeepers, as keepers of the peace. We have participated in the United Nation international peacekeeping forces: peacemaking forces, not war-making forces. How does this fit? I would say it does not fit. We have abandoned our international peacekeeping role and are part of a very terrible war, a war that is threatening to get worse and worse.
I would just like to read a quote from one of the people we are following in this war, one of those individuals who is giving us our lead and giving us our direction. Republican Dan Burton said two days ago: "If conventional bombing does not get the job done, I think it is extremely important that we use everything possible to protect our troops before we send them into ground combat. If we use tactical nuclear weapons, I think it can be effective in getting this war over in a hurry."
Those are the people we are following in this war. We could have another Hiroshima, we could have another 100 Hiroshimas. One air-launched cruise missile has 15 times the power of Hiroshima. We must imagine that. Imagine Hiroshima and the death and destruction of a Hiroshima, and multiply it by 15 times for every air-launched cruise missile that could be used. That is what the United States has always reserved as its right; within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization policies we see the first-strike policy. What is a first-strike policy? It is their right to use nuclear weapons should conventional warfare escalate to a degree that it is no longer manageable or controllable in their determination.
That is where we are right now. For Canada as peacemakers that is where we are right now. We are following not cold warriors any more, but nuclear warriors. Where do we want to be? I do not think that is where we want to be, but where are we going right now? We are going into a nuclear future. We are going there by following the Americans in their lead, and I think a quite aggressive lead, in the Gulf war, and we are going there by following their lead in the North American Air Defence Command agreement. The Norad agreement will tie Canada to the United States in all of its military policies, and its military policies are largely nuclear policies and they include strategic defence initiatives.
It has been five years since we renewed the Norad agreement and it has been five years since we heard a lot of talk about Star Wars and what that would mean in terms of the escalation of the arms race and so on, but it has not gone away. George Bush is still asking for more and more and more money. Last fall we saw the US Congress barter him down and he got, I think, $2.9 billion. The budget just came out for next year for the United States and he wants $5 billion for the strategic defence initiative, for Star Wars.
Canada is about to sign another agreement with the United States that could be five years, 10 years, 15 years. It is most likely going to be two to five years but it could be longer, and that is going to marry us once more, even more tightly, to the US military policies. What is more critical this time than any time before is that we are marrying the United States as it moves into the deployment period for strategic defence initiative. It is quite probable that deployment will start in 1993 or 1994, and once we see the rise in the budget -- the budget requests have upped steadily over the last five years and it is being upped again.
That is where Canada is going in terms of its military policies and that is where Canada is going in terms of its international policies. Is that the kind of Canada we want? I do not think it is. When we look at international security, that is not what we want. We want a strong United Nations. We want a non-aligned country. We want Canada to take its rightful place as a peacemaker, not just a peace-keeper but a peacemaker. How do we do that? We move to non-alignment. We pull ourselves back from that marriage to a superpower, from that marriage to a cold warrior. We set ourselves apart. We set ourselves more in common with the other non-aligned countries. We build those relationships. We look at the infrastructures we have already in place in Canada.
Again, if we use North Bay as an example, North Bay is a command and control centre fon Norad. We have a facility here that is Norad central for Canada. What would that mean if we were to become non-aligned? What would that mean if we were to separate ourselves from the American military policy? It would mean that we would convert that facility to an international facility for monitoring and peacekeeping purposes, for monitoring from an international perspective, not from a North American perspective, not from a continental perspective. That, I think, is where we want to be.
I have no sense of how much time I have used or how much I have left.
The Chair: I was just going to tell you that you have a couple of minutes left.
Ms Lloyd: In ecological security, if we look nationally at where we want to go, what national issues we have, I think I would use energy as an example and what we want Canada to be doing in terms of energy issues. If we use that as one of the sources of ecological pressures, if we look at energy and energy consumption, Canada right now is the biggest per capita energy user in the world. It is not because we are a northern climate, because there are other northern climates. The Scandinavian countries are way down the list; I am sorry I cannot give you the number. But Canada is number one. We are the biggest energy users. A bigger percentage of our gross national product gets spent on energy than any other country.
If we look at energy issues and where we are going in terms of our energy sources, there are two biggies, for northern Ontario in particular. One is nuclear and one is hydraulic. If we look at nuclear we see the Ontario government quite wisely has declared a moratorium -- we do not know for how long -- on the nuclear industries, but Canada has not, and that is what we want to see from Canada. We want to see a Canadian government that plays a strong role in regulating the nuclear industries and phasing out the nuclear industries, not in funding them, giving them $140 million per year just for their advertising budget.
We want to see them taking a strong role in environmental assessments. I will give you another example in the energy field of hydraulics; we look at the James Bay basin as an example of that. At present, within four jurisdictional areas we have three provincial utilities doing major, major hydraulic developments in the James Bay basin, and there is no cumulative assessment. There is only minimal provincial environmental assessment. We have Conawapa in northern Manitoba, we have Moose River basin in northern Ontario and we have Baie James I and II in Quebec. There is no cumulative impact assessment being done whatsoever, and that which is being done province by province is being done in a fractured and separated sense that almost renders these assessments useless.
Those are the directions we need to be going in as a country. As Canada, we need to look at our national responsibilities and national impacts and stresses and address them. I will close there.
2010
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are going to have to move on. We will not be able to have questions, but thanks for your presentation.
It is about 8:10 by my watch and we have an additional six people who have indicated an interest in speaking. We are not going to be able to proceed with the same kind of time frames we have had, because of the time. I am going to suggest that we offer those individuals up to five minutes each to tell us what they will in that time. I realize the time is not long, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances, and I will be ruthless in enforcing that time line. We have other time pressures as well; we have a long bus ride ahead of us to get to our next location. I think we do want to try and accommodate the concerns of the people who have come here to try to speak to us.
TOM PENDERGAST
The Chair: With that in mind, I would call Tom Pendergast.
Mr Pendergast: I will try to be very brief. I have no notes, so I will probably forget half of what I was going to say and that will make me briefer. I did not have a look at the working paper until this afternoon so I did not prepare anything formal, but as this hearing is in my view what Ontario's position should be in relation to Confederation, I wanted, because I am very concerned, because I love Canada and would like to see Canada stay together, to pass on my own personal feelings or reflections on some of the things that have been tearing us apart -- and not just tearing us apart over the last two or three years but tearing us apart maybe for the last hundred years. I do not go back that far; I will confine my remarks to a few personal feelings that happen to be from my own personal experience.
I grew up in the Maritimes during the 1930s, in Prince Edward Island to be exact. We have a lot of French people in Prince Edward Island. I have to say that as an English-speaking person, I really did grow up with the attitude that French people were down here and the rest of us were up somewhere else, you know? I became aware of this and maybe a little embarrassed about it. I am going to use that word "embarrassed" quite a bit. I was too young to be in the service during the war, but I know that many French people -- Acadian French from the Maritimes as well as the people from Quebec -- fought side by side with other Canadians during the war, and I thought that maybe we were making some headway as far as understanding each other went.
I was very embarrassed when in 1947 or 1948, I think it was, an incident happened in Moncton, New Brunswick. The Moncton area is probably more than 60% French; not the city itself but the surrounding area. A man from Memramcook, which is just outside of Moncton, came into the city of Moncton with his 11-year-old son and walked down the street in Moncton, and the son spoke to his father in French. The father's reaction was to give him a slap on the back of the head and say: "Don't speak French here. We might be put in jail or something." That was the kind of scar that that young man suffered, I suppose, and I feel embarrassed about that.
Later on, when I became a little aware of politics, I was also embarrassed when I realized that we had members from Quebec but did not really expect or want them, I guess, to participate. One such member was the one-time mayor of Montreal, Camillien Houde. I might be wrong in this but I did hear that he sat in his seat in the House of Commons when he was elected as a member of Parliament to Canada for one day only and never went back. In my view, I think we as English Canadians really need to think about these things, have to think about the things that have been driving us apart. We are probably responsible, and I think that we knew we were going to have representatives from the province of Quebec but we really did not invite them to participate in the governing of Canada.
I remember being in British Columbia when I was in my early 20s, and that was in the very early 1950s, and I remember hearing something about the goings-on in Ottawa. We did not have television in those days, but some English-speaking Canadians in British Columbia at that time were laughing heartily about how some members from Quebec were bringing up this silly idea of a Canadian flag and how ridiculous it was. That was another example that, as a Canadian, I felt embarrassed about. I felt even then that maybe a Canadian flag was not a bad idea, but to many English Canadians it was laughable that we should even think of a Canadian flag.
I remember years later being in the province of New Brunswick, and I remember in 1960, I think it was, when the first bomb exploded in a mailbox in Montreal -- I think the instigators of that were then called the ALQ -- I remember the comment in the Telegraph Journal in St John that reflected, I suppose, in the writer's view the thinking of most of New Brunswickers.
The comment was made: "Isn't it too bad that we couldn't get all of these French people from Quebec to come down to New Brunswick and see how well we get along with our French neighbours here. We're half French down here and we get along great." But what they meant was, "We get along great as long as they stay in their place." It was almost like the Negroes in the south. That really was true, because it was that same year that Louis Robichaud became the first-ever elected Acadian to be a premier of New Brunswick. There was really quite a change in attitude when people started to hear some French spoken in the streets of Fredericton.
I was embarrassed about those things, and I just want to say that what we need to do as Canadians I think is start to reflect on the things that have driven us apart over the years and try to correct those things. The ladies who spoke here recently talked about the response that they got or the attitudes that were prevalent when they tried to present themselves at Meech Lake, and the thought popped into my mind of blackmail. I am thinking that that is one of the things that in recent years, concurrent with Meech Lake, our leader -- I hate to be political about this, but I think that that one person has done mere to drive a wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada by suggesting, and you can call it blackmail if you want, that the rest of Canada dislikes Quebec, because he did not get his way with Meech Lake.
I think that these are the things that we need to do. Sometimes maybe the media are at fault. For example, I think the media were at fault in overplaying the stomping on a flag in Brockville, and also the reaction that that got in Quebec. It was played over and over in Quebec.
The Chair: If you could sum up --
Mr Pendergast: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks very much. We are not going to be able to have questions because otherwise we will not be able to get through the speakers.
Mr Pendergast: I am just giving you my feelings and I realize there is no need for questions. I would not be able to answer them.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
2020
TOM HARRINGTON
The Chair: I call Tom Harrington.
Mr Harrington: I will test myself with a few words by way of preface. Many of today's public are very conscious of leadership, its requirements, its focus and its achievements. Many of the public seem to have lost confidence in the leadership of their political representatives. I suggest that the task of a politician has became a very difficult one. Two reasons are offered to explain this reality.
First, Canadian citizens for one reason or another think of political response in terms of what it will do for them personally rather than what may be good for the community as a whole. When an individual expectation of this nature becomes rampant, the task of a politician is next to impossible.
On the other hand, from the politician's standpoint, the position often becomes one of trying to play Santa Claus to the general public. As a result, elected representatives sometimes resort to ambiguity in speech, incomplete representation of fact and downplaying of the values upon which our nation is built.
So much for introduction. I have three observations and three recommendations.
My first observation regards our standard of living. As a consequence of Canadian affluence for the past 20 years, a somewhat parasitic way of thinking has invaded the minds of our citizens. We tend to negotiate our settlements using the principle, "I want more for doing less." The ultimate in the application of this concept is, "I want the maximum dollar for doing nothing." Can we expect dividends without personal investment?
We also find individuals and small groups invited by some element of leadership to became very possessive and determined in the pursuit of "me benefits," very often with open disregard for the common good or the good of the Canadian people as a whole.
My second point of observation relates to dehumanization. To the degree that there is truth in the first point that people in part have become very selfish as individuals, we tolerate, if not foster, a degree of dehumanization in people. We see a Canada that permits the slaughter of innocent children for adult convenience. We see disregard for a confident relationship between men and women. As the debate goes on, we see children completely disregarded in the process.
At times our adult community seems to be disarmed by human behaviour patterns that mock family values and ridicule loyalty. We tend to increase our ability to fight fires without realistic search for the arsonist. Is it not factual to say that human indolence without correction will weaken the nation and dehumanize the individual?
A brief quote from Alice in Wonderland: Said Alice to the cat, "Will you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?" Said the cat to Alice, "That depends a good deal on where you want to go." Said Alice to the cat, "I don't much care." Said the cat to Alice, "Then it doesn't matter much which way you go." There are people here in education who might listen a little bit to that comment and many other areas as well.
My third observation relates to communication of the truth. It has become popular, not even a skill, to veil the truth through ambiguity of language when clarity is needed, to speak with silence when response is vital, to use jargon that has little or no meaning. Mr Harris mentioned this morning that the word "bilingual" has many different meanings for many different people. I do not have any difficulty with his statement. How can any Canadian citizen intelligently respond to the phrase "distinct society" until specific meaning is assigned to the word "distinct"? Mr Martin highlighted the need to hear the people as well as the poets. He used slightly different words.
My three recommendations are:
1. The common good: For the common good, and that is the good of all Canadians, the Canadian Constitution must aim itself at protecting the Canadian people as a whole, regardless of age, race, colour or creed. There must be no hidden spots that will put an immigrant citizen or otherwise at a disadvantage in the real world of opportunity. Ontario and Canada must give leadership to its youth by uncompromising protection of human life from conception to natural death.
Only in this way can the corporate soul of a nation be invited to surface. Only in this way can the power of a nation be sensed and supported by all of the citizens. This is not the time for cowards. Our Constitution must protect all citizens from individuals or groups whose sole motivation is the lust for power and control.
2. Realism: Our leaders must put realism before the people, whether it is popular or otherwise. We do have a national debt. We do have immigrant people who must not be put at a disadvantage. We have a need to foster individual talent to give quality service in response to need. We must develop a sense of support for all Canadians. We must have a Constitution for all of the citizens to respect and demand respect for the virtues of loyalty, sacrifice, diligence and mutual support in the realistic business of living.
3. Clarity of expression: Our Constitution must be written and formulated with clarity. There must be a spirit and a desire to express the spirit of the law in such a way as to promote individual confidence, remove suspicion and place the country in a confident position in relation to one another. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Harrington.
DAVID SCHWARTZMAN
The Chair: I call next David Schwartzman.
Mr Schwartzman: I have been on a disability pension and the only work that I do, which is just cleaning up and tidying up, is the only work I have ever known and it is not a job to support me. It is only a pant-time job just for pin money. During those years my main concern has been that those disability pension recipients who require a legal guardian in order to be permitted to be on a pension for that specific handicap need ought not to be treated like a youth if they are not a youth. Such was the case with me, and still is. Well, not quite like a youth, but almost like one.
The only little difference is the only rights that I have as an adult, being allowed to vote, drink -- I am not saying I do drink, I am just using that as an example -- enter contests which require being 18 and over, and other things, getting entries into shows that require 18 and over. I am not saying I do that. I am just using shows that require 18 and over as an example.
Anyway, one of the things that I dislike about a legal guardianship is that your legal guardian has whole control over your life. I think they should only have a part of control over your life if you are disabled to do the things that -- I do not mean physically disabled; I mean disabled in other ways -- you would not be able to do yourself.
They should not be treating you like a youth. For example, if you are going out somewhere and you are dressing up in not formal dress, but semi-formal, and your legal guardian tells you, as an adult, tells the disability pension recipient, "I don't like that shirt. It looks ugly. Why don't you wear something else?" That disability recipient has no other choice but to listen to that legal guardian.
2030
That is one prime example of being treated like a youth, and another prime example is, a few years ago, I was invited to the annual sports athletic achievements awards banquet and my legal guardian told me unless I had a chaperone to be with me in the room in which the banquet was being held, to babysit me, I would not be allowed to go.
I know that I am not capable of travelling anywhere I want to go in the world and I need a chaperone to go with me. There are some things I disagree on my disability pension guardianship power and there are other things that I agree on the power my legal guardians have over me. One thing I agree on is not being allowed to travel to places without being chaperoned. That is one thing, because I know that I have not had the experience due to my institutionalization at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, formerly called the Ontario Hospital School. Because of my nine years of institutionalization, especially if you have had 11 years of institutionalization since you are 13 years old, which was the case in my case, I agree that somebody should be there so I can be under their wing, which I am.
That means if I were invited to Toronto to take part in that banquet, and I am supposed to have a chaperone go with me, so be it. I find nothing wrong with that because I am not independent to travel alone. But once I get there, if my chaperone has not been invited to that banquet and I have, I feel that I should give the chaperone an approxlmate time as to when the banquet is going to be over and the chaperone can pick me up later. They go and do the town or something in Toronto or watch TV in the hotel room while I am attending the banquet. There is nothing wrong with that. But if my legal guardian says to me, just as he or she would say to a youth 15 or 16 or 17, "No. You have to have the chaperone or babysitter right in that banquet room with you or else you can't go," that is where I am being treated like a youth.
Another thing I am not allowed to do is write letters to politicians concerning any objections I may have about the power that my legal guardian has over me because I am a disability pension recipient. A lot of people, the North Bay and District Association for Community Living, formerly the North Bay and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, have legal guardians too, perhaps not necessarily somebody in their own family. They have what they call an adult protective service worker, which is what I call a legal guardian, but at least they do not have all the power that my legal guardians, who are not the adult protective service workers at the association but my own cousin and her husband, have.
The Chair: I think, Mr Schwartzman, we understand the point that you are making. If you have any final comments, very briefly, because your time is up.
Mr Schwartzman: Yes. I do not know if anybody has an absolute certain answer to my question, but does my legal guardian have any control as to whether or not I could move out of his house or not and get my own apartment?
The Chair: I do not think there is anybody here who can answer that question. What we can do, if you want, if you need some help with those kinds of questions, if you would like to leave your name with our staff, we can pass it on to the appropriate people and somebody can get in touch with you. Okay? If there is a phone number or an address where you can be reached, we can do that.
Mr Schwartzman: All right.
The Chair: Okay? Thanks very much, because we do not have that answer for you right now.
Mr Schwartzman: Neither do you have the answers in regard to violation of other rights or privileges of the other people?
The Chair: I think you need to maybe sit down with somebody who can give you those answers. We are not the people who have those answers.
Mr Schwartzman: Who would?
The Chair: I do not know, but what I am saying to you is we can help you find out.
Mr Bisson: Perhaps his local member.
The Chair: Yes. We can help you find someone who can sit dawn with you and try to help you.
Mr Schwartzman: Well, my closing comments are --
The Chair: I am sorry, we cannot. We just have to go on to the next speaker. All right?
NORMAN GUERTIN
The Chair: Norm Guertin? Go ahead.
M. Guertin: Pnemiènemont, j `aimerais dire quo je suis très capable do m'exptimen soit en fnançais au en anglais, mais j `ai décidé do donner mon discours en anglais ot comme ça tout lo monde dans ba salle pounna me comprendne. ca va?
M. le Président: Oui, quand vous voubez.
Mr Guertin: Canadians like Bernadette Mann-Strom are saying that they are outcasts in their own home towns because they speak French. Many are English, yet bilingual, citizens who feel this way also. This is also of no surprise to me and many others, now that we have given lethal permission to our own society to be as discriminatory as it wishes towards its own fellow country builders. There is a cause and effect analogy here. There exists a force in this country that is so discriminatory that it has caused a snowballing effect of bigotry, building to the point of the destruction of the Meech Lake accord.
Throughout past years we have hosted antidiscrimination days across Ontario, as we are right now in March coming up with Don Curry at Canadore College, while at the same time we have allowed bigotry to thrive to the point of ruining the very fabric of our dualistic identity, whole communities opting on a whim of bigotry, racism and/or discrimination for unilingualism in running their towns and cities right before the very eyes and ears of fellow Canadians. All of these communities have been motivated by the same negative and destructive force that I am referring to: the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, otherwise known as APEC.
Now, really -- preserve English? English is a predominant language in Canada, in the world, and the cultural spread is phenomenal. This is not an endangered culture by any means, and allow me to say that I do love English. I read a lot in English, I speak both languages and appreciate that fact. I consider myself an unbiased and open-minded Canadian with a point of view and a vision like anyone else.
How could we, as a society, have allowed this group of negativism to belittle the English as well as French roots of our history? The worst is that APEC claims to represent all of English Canada -- at least pretends to, from what I can see -- and this is propaganda. I do not believe that we have devolved to this low.
2040
The Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada totally disregards the existence of our two founding European nations of this country. It claims that Canada has been built solely as an English society. My God, let's wake up. The French and English together defended Canada from the United States in the War of 1812 and won. Have we forgotten colonization times, the Seven Years' War, Treaty of Paris, Quebec Act, Constitutional Act and on and on and on? The French and English fought together as Canadians to free the Netherlands from Nazi occupation in this century. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands sends us, French and English Canadians alike, thousands of tulips each year to thank us -- and not only English Canadians. I could rhyme off a long list of historical events in which we have worked together as a nation.
APEC does not acknowledge this. Their list of propaganda is longer than every Canadian's arms put together. It is the very cause of most of our cultural tensions. Quebec's negative view of the rest of Canada has been generally caused by this minority group and it is the wrong impression that Quebec sees. This organization must be outlawed -- this is my view -- for the good of all Canada, and I express it with all the love, imagination and passion of a true Canadian.
In a nutshell the following four approaches could help to solve our problems: 1. Acknowledge the two European founding nations of this country by welcoming Canada into federalism with very open arms;
2. Acknowledge our first and foremost founding nation, the North American Indian;
3. Stipulate immigration policies that stress that a criteria of acceptance into our country be their willingness to fit into our national fabric of three founding nations.
4. Last, eliminate bigotry in Canada with very tough policies and laws. The root of this problem is APEC and thus it must be outlawed.
Thank you for allowing me to express my views.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
LLOYD HENNING
The Chair: Could I invite next Lloyd Henning.
Mr Henning: Good evening. The trouble with Canada is me-ism. It is never Canada first, but Quebec, Ontarian, Ukrainian, etc and every little minority that feels they are not getting their fair share of the pie, and usually this means a financial piece.
While I was stationed in the United States a few years ago, and though certainly they have their faults as we all do, one thing I did notice is that it was America first, then a Minnesotan, Norwegian, etc, next.
There is one thing I would like to stress: As much as some people say we are not a melting pot society like the United States but a multicultural one, I beg to differ. As far as I am concerned, we are a melting pot society, an English Canadian melting pot, with the exception of Quebec, which is a French Canadian melting pot.
I blame the governments federally, provincially, past and present for our problems at trying to enforce an unworkable bilingual and multicultural policy on the Canadian people. Not only is it unworkable but extremely costly, and bickering and backbiting caused by it is the major reason for the divisions in our country. Also, it only serves an elite few, especially in bilingualism.
Do not get me wrong. I am not prejudiced or anti-French, but am like a majority of people in wanting a sensible solution to the present painful situation we find ourselves in. Years ago I thought it horrifying that Quebec would wish to separate. I feel much differently now. I can see where Quebec is coming from as it is definitely a distinct society. I feel that the other nine provinces plus the territories should try to establish a working sovereignty association with Quebec, but I stress again, it will not work if they do not work together as one in dealing with Quebec. As far as I am concerned this means the language of Quebec is French and the rest of Canada English, with no special treatment given to English in Quebec or to the French in the rest of Canada.
Coming back to multiculturalism, I notice Canadian people, when asked who they are by outsiders, they do not say German Canadian, Italian Canadian, etc, but just Canadian, with the exception of French Canadians, which is as it should be.
Of course, we also have to deal with the natives in a sensible and a reasonable way, so let's stress and emphasize that we are Canadians or French Canadians first, and I stress the word "Canadian." Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
T. J. GAGNON
The Chair: And finally, T. J. Gagnon.
Mr Gagnon: Thank you for allowing me to speak, put my views, but as I see with Quebec, my people all come from there and there is no distinction at all. You say Quebec is distinct; you are insulting me, because you are saying they are better than I am. I go down to Quebec to visit my people and they talk about the English. My mother comes from there; she is Irish. Jim Whelan, who was a speaker in the House in Ottawa, is my uncle. They come from there. And they talk about the Irish. There was a native sat here. He said he was part Irish. If you go to Quebec you will find half of the French people over there, they are all mixed. I happen to have a niece here. She has got four of them in her. She has got some German in her. If we keep this going with Quebec -- we are talking about Canadians -- instead of uniting Canadians, we are trying to divide them.
That is what I am talking about right now. As myself and my own people there, you take the country. They all came that direction. There was no west coast then and they all immigrated from the east, and if we keep meddling the way it is there, we will be like Europe; we will have all little countries. From here to Waterloo and that, that was all German -- from Powassan, Callander. You know, those fellows get up and start theirs and the Chinamen get up -- you are talking about language. There should be one working language spoken across the board. Who is going to understand all that? If you had just as many Chinamen here now, they should be able to speak English. It should be the same for Quebec.
The Chair: Sorry, sir. We would prefer that you refer to them either as Chinese Canadians or of Chinese origin, okay?
Mr Gagnon: That should be for one language. When you come into the country, you should live as Canadians. That is the way they immigrated here in the first place. France and England, they were always fighting. They said:
"Let's get out of there. We'll come here and make our own country." And that was to live together. So they have been living together ever since. Now, this is political gain. They say: "We'll give you this language, we'll give you that language." That is the politicians. That is the way I see it.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you, sir.
All right. That concludes our speakers here in North Bay and it concludes also our hearings in North Bay. Tomorrow we continue our hearings in Orillia and Collingwood.
I want to thank all of those of you people here in the audience who came this evening and those who came earlier in the day and invite you to continue following our proceedings over the parliamentary channel, if you are interested, and if any of you wish to send us any written comments, please feel free to do so. Thank you very much. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 2049.