ASSOCIATION MULTICULTURELLE FRANCOPHONE DE L'ONTARIO
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DE FRANCOPHONES D'AFRIQUE
DIALOGUE CANADA, TORONTO CHAPTER
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE
DE L'ONTARIONATIONAL CONGRESS
OF FILIPINO CANADIAN ASSOCIATIONSJOHN MELIN, ROBERT GREENHILL,
PATRICK PICHETTE AND MARTIN LEBLANC
CONTENTS
Monday 18 February 1991
Association multiculturelle francophone de l'Ontario
Christopher Stewart
Roberto Perin
John Crispo
George Forster
Stan Matias
Hans Modlich
Afternoon sitting
Mrs Edward Ryan
L. J. Redman
Peter Lowry
Ken Hester
Association canadienne de francophones d'Afrique
Brian Graft
Donald Clappison
Reg Whitaker
Clay Derstine
Dialogue Canada, Toronto chapter
Chris Nair
Ontario Race Council
Martin Amber
Evening sitting
Subcommittee report
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario
National Congress of Filipino Associations
John Melin, Robert Greenhill, Patrick Pichette and Martin LeBlanc
Renato Ciolsi
Rik Gates
David Huband
Alliance haïtienne
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 HOP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitutions:
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton NDP) for Ms Harrington
Villeneuve, Noble (Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry PC) for Mr Harnick
Ward, Brad (Brantford NDP) for Mr F. Wilson
Clerk: Manikel, Tannis
Clerk pro tem: Brown, Harold
Staff:
Kaye, Philip, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
Murray, Paul, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
The committee met at 1008 in room 151.
The Chair: I welcome those people who are in the audience. This is of course the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. We are resuming our hearings here in Toronto today in week number three of a four-week schedule that has us in different parts of the province. We will be continuing our travels this week to Windsor, London, Kitchener, Brantford and Hamilton, and as I say we are here today to hear the views of a number of individuals and organizations within the Toronto area.
As I have been saying throughout the process, we are travelling throughout the province in an attempt to hear from individuals and groups across the province on the kinds of things people think are important to us as a province and as a country in the kind of time frame we are in now and the kind of discussions that will ensue on the future of the province and the country, particularly around the social and economic interests and aspirations that people have and what kinds of structures or forms of Confederation will better respond to those needs. We have heard in the two weeks to date a number of interesting and useful suggestions to us which the committee will be digesting and working through, and no doubt in the next two weeks that will be equally as true.
This is a committee made up of representatives from the three political parties here at Queen's Park. I know the people who are here in the room can see the name tags of people, of the members who are here, but because these proceedings are being broadcast throughout the province on the parliamentary channel I will do as I usually do at the beginning of each day's sitting and introduce the members of the committee.
I am Tony Silipo, the Chair of the committee. From the NDP caucus we have Gary Malkowski, Marilyn Churley, Gilles Bisson, who is also the Vice-Chair of the committee, David Winninger, Brad Ward and Ellen MacKinnon. From the Liberal caucus we have Charles Beer and Steven Offer, and Yvonne O'Neill will join us shortly. From the Conservative caucus we have Ernie Eves and Charles Harnick.
We have a number of speakers before us this morning and I should tell the members of the committee that we also have a full afternoon and the list will be made available to us throughout the day. We may be in a position to add a couple of organizations in the afternoon, depending on some things that are being sorted out now.
ASSOCIATION MULTICULTURELLE FRANCOPHONE DE L'ONTARIO
The Chair: We will proceed this morning and begin with Alfred Abouchar, de l'Association multiculturelle francophone de l'Ontario.
What I would like to say before Mr Abouchar begins is that we have set aside the time slot of about 30 minutes for organizations and 15 minutes for individuals. We cannot go beyond that time and we would deeply appreciate it if people are able to keep their comments below that time so as to allow some time for questions by members of the committee, because we find that is also a useful part of the process.
M. Abouchar: Monsieur le Président, mesdames et messieurs les parlementaires, en tant que président de l'Association multiculturelle francophone de l'Ontario et en tant que membre du Conseil consultatif des relations civiques et multiculturelles de l'Ontario, il me fait grand plaisir de vous adresser la parole ce matin pour vous entretenir de sujets qui préoccupent un nombre de plus en plus croissant de citoyens et de citoyennes de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à l'avenir de notre province au sein de la Confédération canadienne.
Le débat constitutionnel que nous subissons depuis les quelques dernières années prend une ampleur de plus en plus alarmante, principalement à cause de son ambiguïté et des sentiments suscités d'insécurité et d'impuissance qui animent présentement la plupart de nos concitoyens et de nos concitoyennes. Je vous dispenserai alors de la rhétorique habituelle qui tend à réduire l'avenir de ce pays à un jeu de force et de pouvoir entre le Québec et le reste du Canada. Je m'efforcerai aussi de ne pas me laisser prendre par la dramatisation typiquement médiatique d'une telle situation sociopolitique fort complexe, je l'avoue, mais tout de même tangible et réelle. Enfin, je ne vous adresserai pas de sermons sur les bienfaits de la tolérance, de la coexistence, du compromis et d'un Canada renouvelé.
Ma présentation se veut alors fort simple puisqu'elle se propose d'adresser les fondements et le contexte mêmes du débat constitutionnel, vous invitant ainsi à transcender avec moi l'éloquence de la théorie conflictuelle apparente.
Le Canada s'affiche sur la scène mondiale comme un pays qui prône la paix dans le monde et qui se veut un modèle de tolérance sociale. Le Canada se dit officiellement bilingue tout en se flattant de ses aptitudes multiculturelles. Le Canada se veut un pays exemplaire par son immigration croissante, sa diversité culturelle, sa civilité, son pacifisme, sa technologie et surtout sa conscience sociale en ce qui a trait à l'amélioration des conditions de vie et de l'environnement. Ce Canada que nous remettons en question présentement est encore convoité par des centaines de milliers de personnes à travers les cinq continents.
Pourtant c'est ce même Canada que nous voyons au bord du précipice, que nous avons disséqué, que nous sommes en train d'analyser chacun à sa façon et que nous profitons de refaçonner à l'image soit de nos valeurs ou de nos intérêts personnels. Je me permets alors de croire soit que nous subissons un dialogue de sourds, soit que nous assistons à une négociation très astucieuse à huis clos où l'on suppose que les quelques intervenants traitent de notre bien collectif. Pourquoi alors ce débat et comment sommes-nous arrivés jusque-là?
Au fin fond des choses, la question est simple et la réponse encore plus simple. Le présent débat est un débat historique entre deux peuples colonisateurs, entre les descendants de deux collectivités qui n'ont jamais réglé leurs différends en ce qui a trait au partage des pouvoirs tant économiques que politiques. Je ne m'aventurerai pas alors à prendre position ou parti dans ce débat, sachant fort bien qu'il est réel et qu'il est fondé sur des injustices et des iniquités passées.
Je me permets pourtant de m'injecter dans ce débat pour contester l'absence des autochtones, la négligence et le manque de considération à l'égard de millions de Canadiens issus de cultures mixtes et de plus de neuf millions de Canadiens d'origines ethniques autres que canadiennes-françaises ou anglaises qui, silencieux jusqu'à présent, attendent encore qu'on les invite à participer à la mise en oeuvre de l'avenir de ce pays. Pourtant, en recevant leur citoyenneté canadienne, ces derniers se sont bien fait dire qu'ils devaient assumer une pleine responsabilité fiscale et sociale et, par conséquent, pouvaient dorénavant jouir des mêmes droits et privilèges que tous les autres Canadiens. Mais de quels droits et privilèges parlons-nous et de quels Canadiens parlons-nous ? De quoi parlons-nous finalement ?
ll y a au Canada des Canadiens français et anglais, il y a aussi des autochtones et des minorités visibles et parfois même invisibles. Il y a des anglophones du Québec et des francophones hors Québec. Il y a aussi des allophones, des francophiles, des francogènes, des francophones, des néoCanadiens, des groupes ethniques et même des multiculturels, tout comme si cela pouvait vraiment exister. On parle de société distincte pour les Québécois de souche et de culture uniquement pour les francophones hors Quebec et on enchâsse le tout dans la constitution canadienne et dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, et même dans les lois de ce pays. On voit alors Statistique Canada se hâter de fournir d'une façon incontestable la preuve des nombres justificatifs pour permettre au législateur d'articuler de nouvelles lois correctives à l'égard de ceux qui ont légalement le droit de parole.
Pour certains c'est le moment ou jamais, pour d'autres, animés de remords ou d'intérêts, c'est l'ouverture, le compromis et la tolérance. Les agents multiplicateurs de la bonne nouvelle se multiplient et le débat s'intensifie. Le Canada se polarise et les pôles se multiplient. On mise alors sur les différences, on étiquette, on régionalise, on divise et on partage. Le statu quo est alors rejeté et l'impossible consensus est très recherché. Nous voyons alors se glisser un malaise social qui engendre l'injustice, l'iniquité, la frustration, la haine, le racisme, l'intolérance que nous essayons de confiner par à-coups de commissions parlementaires, d'enquêtes publiques, de procès, de colloques et de forums de discussions. Le malaise est profond et réel et les solutions disponibles demeurent, tant pour les uns que pour les autres, injustes, insuffisantes et non appropriées.
De l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés aux lois sur les langues officielles et sur le multiculturalisme au niveau fédéral, et de la Loi 8 sur les services en langue française à la création de conseils scolaires et de collèges communautaires en langue française en Ontario, le débat demeure toujours au niveau du biculturalisme canadien et des droits historiques des Franco-Ontariens de souche dans cette province. Je me dois alors d'attirer votre attention sur le fait que l'article 257a de la Loi sur l'éducation, ainsi que le recensement de novembre 1991 qui s'en vient et qui est préscrit par la Loi sur les élections municipales, récemment adoptée en Chambre par le gouvernement, tirent encore leur définition de «francophone» de l'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, excluant ainsi volontairement des centaines de milliers d'Ontariens francophones d'origine ethnique autre que canadienne-française.
Pour une province qui se veut multiculturelle, juste et démocrate, il est difficile de concevoir cet état de choses vis-à-vis des francophones de nouvelle souche. Pourtant, c'est la simple vérité.
Quelle est alors la solution à apporter à ce débat constitutionnel? Que devons-nous faire en Ontario pour résoudre l'impasse ? Que pouvons-nous proposer aux autres provinces pour résoudre cet énigme politique ?
La réponse réside au niveau des deux concepts du bilinguisme et du multiculturalisme. En donnant l'exemple aux autres provinces, l'Ontario devrait reconnaître les deux langues officielles du Canada, les promouvoir et les sauvegarder, offrant ainsi à tous ceux et celles qui le souhaitent l'opportunité de vivre librement leur culture dans la langue canadienne de leur choix.
Il est alors d'une importance capitale de ne plus ghettoiser la communauté franco-ontarienne, de sensibiliser la collectivité multiculturelle anglophone de l'Ontario à l'existence d'une collectivité multiculturelle francophone en Ontario et de mettre en place des lois, des mécanismes et des infrastructures qui reflètent réellement cette orientation. Les conseils scolaires de langue française, les collèges communautaires, les services sociaux et communautaires et le financement public devraient être accessibles à tous les francophones de l'Ontario. Les universités bilingues telles l'Université d'Ottawa, l'Université Laurentienne et le Collège Glendon de l'Université York devraient être mieux financées pour mieux servir et refléter la dualité linguistique, la pluralité culturelle de l'Ontario. L'Ontario devrait enfin reconnaître la spécificité linguistique et la pluralité de la société québécoise et exiger que les présents porte-parole de cette province incluent les autochtones, les anglophones ainsi que les allophones qui y résident.
1020
Quant au gouvernement fédéral, l'Ontario devra exiger que les lois et les programmes des langues officielles et du multiculturalisme fédéraux soient amalgamés pour mieux refléter le bilinguisme et le multiculturalisme canadien.
Mes suggestions sont simples et justes et reflètent selon mes observations les sentiments d'un très grand nombre d'Ontariens et d'Ontariennes. Elles se doivent toutefois d'être considérées dans une nouvelle perspective, d'une société fondée sur le respect des individus, des langues et des cultures. Le bilinguisme et le multiculturalisme canadiens demeurent encore à ce jour les seuls fondements réels et solides sur lesquels pourra se façonner le Canada de l'avenir, et l'Ontario se doit de les considérer trés sérieusement et de les articuler pour démontrer au reste du Canada ce qu'est en réalité ce principe fondamental et encore théorique du bilinguisme et du multiculturalisme canadiens. Merci.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Abouchar. Are there questions?
Mr Harnick: Sir, I have listened with interest to your remarks. Having been to a number of centres in Ontario, I can tell you that your remarks would be greeted with joy in some places and with outrage in others. How do we reconcile those differing views of Ontarians in terms of recognition of francophone rights, multiculturalism, and the other side of the coin which does not want to recognize any of that? Is there a middle ground? Can Bill 8 possibly be seen as that middle ground, and can Bill 8 be implemented in such a way that it will meet everyone's needs in terms of the values that Ontarians have in their society?
Mr Abouchar: I will attempt to answer your question, or the two questions that you have asked, by saying that I honestly believe that most Ontarians are very tolerant towards bilingualism and multiculturalism. You have mentioned Bill 8. You have mentioned the right of francophones. I think the whole debate has been wrongly presented to the population of Ontario.
Assuming that Ontario has already started by accepting multiculturalism in its anglophone community, which is the majority, one has to look at Bill 8 and see how francophone rights have been presented to the rest of Ontario. They have been presented in a context of biculturalism. It has been presented as a historical right of a group of people living in Ontario who are organizing themselves in a certain way, without really being part of this province in their infrastructure.
We have school boards and colleges, we have social services being presented and offered to Franco-Ontarians. I think the rest of the population is sitting there and watching and wondering why the province and Canada are putting so much energy, effort and money on one ethnic group. I know this community does not like to be called an ethnic group, but we are all from an ethnic background.
If the francophone community in Ontario is presented to the rest of the population as a multicultural francophone population, I am pretty sure that the anglophone multicultural community of Ontario will accept bilingualism and will accept the rights of francophones. This does not exclude any rights to the Franco-Ontarian community, but I think in a multicultural society it becomes very difficult to accept the historical point of view of Canada. Ontario is changing, Canada is changing and I think we have to talk about interculturalism and respect for all cultures, not one or two or three specific cultures because of history.
Ms Churley: Thank you very much for your interesting presentation. My question is based on some comments we heard. You have the benefit here and we have the benefit now of being into our third week and have heard from a variety of different people. My question is around what you think would happen to French rights in Ontario if Quebec were to separate in some fashion. Certainly we have heard different opinions on that, but I would like to hear yours.
Mr Abouchar: What would happen to the francophone community of Ontario if Quebec separates?
Ms Churley: Yes. Do you think it is dependent in some ways on the strength of Quebec pushing for French rights?
Mr Abouchar: I do not think so. I have mentioned Statistics Canada. I think it is part of the problem and part of the political game being played in this country. We know from Statistics Canada, and it has been very hard to get, that there are over I million people in this province, one out of nine, who are defined as francophone, but we still continue to define la francophonie as being 500,000 Franco-Ontarians with rights and specific needs, without considering another very important part of la francophonie that is not being recognized in this province. Bill 8 has been a problem for this community because it has been defined as a solution to a specific historical problem.
Ontario is on the right track with Bill 8, if Bill 8 is interpreted as a French-Language services act where all the francophones, all the new Canadians who come to Ontario and who chose to live in French, can have access to services, not in terms of numbers and not in terms of history. I think Ontario can live as a bilingual society, respecting all the components of the society and can flourish as a bilingual province and be a model for the rest of Canada. I have to say that Quebec also has a very important multicultural community and is not basically a Québécois society or a purely Québécois society. One tends to forget that in the debate because the multicultural community, the francophone multicultural community in Quebec and in Ontario is not organized and is not politicized.
M. Beer: Ma question se porte à la question qui vient d'être posée au sujet de la francophonie multiculturelle en Ontario et au Québec. Est-ce que vous voyez des similarités ou des différences entre, disons, les francophones multiculturels à Montréal ou à Québec en comparaison avec Toronto ou Ottawa, et est-ce qu'il y a peut-être un besoin et un moyen par lesquels l'AMFO peut jouer un rôle avec les francophones multiculturels au Québec ? Qu'est-ce qui arrive maintenant entre ces deux communautés ? Parce que de plus en plus, comme vous dites, Montréal est en train de devenir une ville multiculturelle comme Toronto, même si c'est plutôt du côté francophone multiculturel et là vous avez peut-être un rôle important à jouer.
M. Abouchar : Je pense tout d'abord qu'il faudrait s'en sortir du concept de multiculturalisme francophone à Toronto et peut-être à Ottawa. Le multiculturalisme francophone est présent dans toutes les parties de la province de l'Ontario pour commencer, sauf que cette communauté n'est pas connue, on n'est pas visible. Pour répondre à votre première question, la comparaison entre les francophones du Québec et les multiculturels francophones du Québec et de l'Ontario, je pense que nous vivons tous les mêmes problèmes de Canadiens de nouvelle souche depuis 20, 30 ans, sauf que les multiculturels francophones du Québec s'associent avec la majorité de la province. Donc, il y a une dynamique de groupe qui est totalement différente. Tandis que, dans notre cas ici en Ontario, les ethnoculturels francophones qui veulent se joindre à la francophonie ontarienne retrouvent une communauté fermée, très prise par ses problèmes, par ses débats, par ses acquis qui a peur de les intégrer et qui dans certains cas voudrait uniquement les assimiler, par peur de perdre cet élément culturel qui n'a jamais été défini mais qui est très omniprésent dans le débat politique.
1030
D'un autre côté, cette communauté multiculturelle francophone se sent étrangère face à la communauté multiculturelle anglophone de l'Ontario et à l'anglophonie ontarienne, ce qui fait que nous nous sentons double minoritaire dans cette province. On se fait toujours dire : «Attendez qu'on finisse avec les problèmes de la francophonie ontarienne pour s'occuper de vous.»
C'est là où se trouve la différence entre les francophones multiculturels du Québec et ceux de l'Ontario. Je pense que, depuis deux ou trois ans, les multiculturels francophones de l'Ontario se mobilisent, s'organisent. Le débat est extrêmement difficile, étant donné que nous n'avons pas vraiment accès aux finances dans les langues officielles puisque les langues officielles, c'est en réalité un département de biculturalisme.
Les francophones multiculturels du Québec commencent aussi à se mobiliser et à s'organiser politiquement. Je pense que dans les 20 prochaines années, la communauté multiculturelle francophone du Canada -- et on a commencé avec l'Alberta -- va créer un front commun de francophones au Québec et francophones hors Québec. Mais j'espère que ça ne sera pas pour entrer en conflit avec qui que ce soit mais plutôt pour essayer de s'intégrer à une communauté qui ne réalise pas encore l'existence et la richesse que peut apporter cette nouvelle francophonie dans le pays.
J'espère avoir répondu à votre question.
M. Winninger: Est-ce que vous dites que le gouvernement de l'Ontario doit offrir un appui financier à toutes les cultures en Ontario ?
M. Abouchar: Non, ce n'est pas nécessairement ce que j'ai dit. Je dis que le gouvernement de l'Ontario devrait être un chef de file dans la reconnaissance du bilinguisme officiel du Canada et dans ses programmes gouvernementaux promouvoir non seulement un groupe ethnique mais tous les groupes ethniques comme il le fait au niveau de la communauté anglophone, mais le faire aussi au sein de la communauté francophone.
Si vous prenez toutes les subventions qui sont données soit par le fédéral ou le provincial à cette communauté de francophones hors Québec ou de Franco-Ontariens, je pense qu'il y a un réalignement des acquis au niveau de la province qui ferait en sorte que la francophonie multiculturelle puisse se joindre à la francophonie ontarienne et la province de l'Ontario pourrait être un exemple de société au Canada et dans le monde.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Mr Abouchar, we have met with a number of students, young people, and I guess the strength of their message was the strongest in Sudbury, when we had francophone students literally begging us, with great emotion, for the establishment of a French-language university and certainly more community colleges.
I am not sure that is the impression you gave, because you talked about Glendon and you talked about the University of Ottawa, so would you say a little bit about the interpretation that you give to the establishment of bilingual post-secondary institutions, or unilingual English/French post-secondary institutions?
Mr Abouchar: I can answer your question by maybe asking you a question. How many of these students were of non-Franco-Ontarian origin? I am pretty sure I know the answer, and it brings back the subject I have been discussing with you this morning, that the multicultural francophone community is politically absent in Ontario. It is very real. It is everywhere, except that it is very far away from the political infrastructure that you know and that we all know in this province.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I thank you very much for explaining that so well, the difference between Ontario and Quebec multicultural francophones. You have done it very well.
Mr Abouchar: What I am trying to say is that when we have a debate, when we have a commission, when we have inquiries around the province, you will not find the multicultural francophone community present. All the ideas you are getting are coming from one single community, which is very active, which has its right to request a Franco-Ontarian university because that is the mandate that they have, that is the way they see the preservation of their culture.
What I am trying to add to this is that there are more francophones in this province and more numerous francophones than the Franco-Ontarians who are in bilingual universities, who are in bilingual colleges, who are trilingual.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: And many of them are actually on the staff and faculties of these universities.
Mr Abouchar: Some of them, in some universities, yes. I do not think this community wants to be ghettoized in the name of the preservation of a culture. We want to be Canadian. We want to be bilingual. We want to share with all cultures in this province. We do not want to live only with francophones and that is the difference between the Franco-Ontarian community, which has its historical perspective, and the new Canadians who are coming to Canada who want to live with the société d'accueil, which is the Franco-Ontarian community in this province, but who also want to be with the anglophone community and the multicultural anglophone community, and that is the difference between the two collectivities right now.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: So you would say with affirmation then that you want bilingual post-secondary institutions?
M Abouchar: Yes, and if the Franco-Ontarian community wishes to have a Franco-Ontarian university, we will work with them to have a Franco-Ontarian university, but not by destroying the bilingual and multicultural communities at the post-secondary level that we have right now.
The Chair: Last question, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: My question is really a pickup of a certain line of questioning that Mr Winninger brought forward and I am wondering if you might be able to share with us. Do you feel that there is a role for Ontario to play in terms of the principles underlying Bill 8 and expanding that to the multicultural community, in that the provision of services and the role that Ontario can play is that the provision of services in areas where numbers warrant should not be limited just to French, but should be expanded to a wide variety of multicultural groups? I am wondering if you might be able to expand on that, if that is your position?
Mr Abouchar: Our position is very simple. I think the preamble of Bill 8 should be amended because right now it is being interpreted as a Franco-Ontarian bill, the preservation of the patrimoine culturel des francophones, meaning Franco-Ontarian, in this province and that is how it is being implemented right now. So I think the first item on the agenda should be an amendment to the preamble of Bill 8. Bill 8 by itself should be widened so that all francophones in this province would have access to services. I know it is a costly proposition, but I think it is a must in a province which attempts to recognize the reality of the francophone community and which attempts to serve all Ontarians. We will find, by doing that, that we can double the number of francophones in this province who can use the services that the government is putting forward for the francophone community.
M. le Président: Thank you. Merci, Monsieur Abouchar d'avoir ajouté une perspective importante à nos discussions.
CHRISTOPHER STEWART
The Chair: I call Christopher Stewart.
Mr Stewart: I would like to first direct you to the title page of my presentation, entitled The More Things Change, The More Things Stay The Same. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on the future of Canada. I have divided the following presentation into the following categories: How Meech failed; how the amending formula should be changed before entering into any new negotiations; a solution for the Quebec question; a critique of the triple E -- elected, equal, effective -- proposal for Senate reform and my own alternative proposal; a proposed resolution for the aboriginal question; and an examination of two proposals being recommended for use in this round of constitutional negotiation, the constituent assembly and the public referendum.
First, let me start by saying that I love a bilingual, multicultural Canada. I feel this country has benefited greatly by being born out of both the French and English cultures and the addition of more cultures has led to Canada becoming the greatest nation on Earth.
I do not think Quebec will ever separate from Canada, because any proposal from the Quebec government, whether it be from the Parti québécois or the Liberals, always calls for more provincial powers while establishing a stronger economic union. The heart of the matter is that Quebec cannot afford to separate from Canada. Also, I want all Canadians to understand that we as a nation have been discussing constitutional issues since 1926 and therefore there is no real constitutional crisis in Canada. What we need now is not people speaking solely from the heart, but people using rational thought before taking one position over another.
1040
Let us look at why the Meech Lake accord failed. For me the accord did not fail because the process was too undemocratic, a complaint of the 1982 agreement as well, but rather because of the amending formula. Let us remember that when Premier Bourassa presented his five conditions for Quebec acceptance of the 1982 constitution, two required unanimous consent.
What happens now to these two conditions is that every political leader holds the power to veto any agreement. When one holds the power to block an agreement, why should one negotiate? The recent Meech experience demonstrates my point. The two men ultimately responsible for killing the accord, Elijah Harper and Clyde Wells, never offered any alternatives. All Canadians heard from these two men was that the accord was unacceptable. Even at this time, with the accord dead, neither of these two men has offered the voters of Canada their view of a new Canada.
Another problem in the amending formula is the amount of time given to pass an agreement by the 11 legislatures after one is reached by the first ministers. When one has three years, there is a tendency for people to wait until the last minute before trying to receive formal legislature approval. Also, this three-year time period allows the agreement to become blurred. Instead of being an issue about holding the country together, it becomes simply a political issue.
This was demonstrated when the Manitoba government refused to pass the accord because the CF-18 contract had been awarded to Montreal over Winnipeg. In my opinion a constitutional agreement affecting the whole country is far more important than a contract to build airplanes.
Finally, the three-year time period allows for new leaders and governments to enter into the scene. When this happens, we are forced to re-open negotiations because new issues come forward.
I would suggest that the following changes should be made to the amending formula: first, that the time period be reduced from three years to one; second, that the unanimity requirement be dropped and that all amendments require the two-thirds/50% approval; finally, that the only House that needs to pass the amendment is the House of Commons.
I will now further explain each point. I would like to see the time requirement decreased, because as I have stated before the issues sometimes become clouded. The agreement on constitutional issues is paramount and it is a difficult task to get a constitutional agreement. So once an agreement is secured we should immediately ensure official legislative passage and focus our attention on more pressing needs. Also, if new governments come to power it is quite unlikely that they would want to ratify an agreement they were against while in opposition. No new government follows the old agenda; it sets its own.
The reason to drop the unanimity requirement can be easily demonstrated by examining the events that led to the agreement in 1982. Prior to the decision reached by the Supreme Court of Canada, there was a solid coalition of provinces dubbed the "gang of eight." This was when the political leaders thought unanimous consent would be needed to patriate the Constitution. After the Supreme Court decision which allowed the federal government to go on its own, the gang of eight started to fall apart. I might also remind the committee members that it was after the unanimous consent myth was shattered that we had some real negotiations. Again, unanimity does not force anyone to negotiate when they know they can stop the process.
Finally, the reason I would like to see only the House of Commons pass the agreement is that it would make the system more democratic. The citizens of Canada must realize two important issues: first, that there is no procedure within the present amending formula to co-ordinate the 11 legislative committees that must be set up before legislative approval is given, such that any change to the agreement proposed by any of the 11 committees forces us to re-open negotiations. Simply changing a comma to a period within a constitutional provision can change the whole scope and meaning of that original provision. For this reason, either some co-ordination among the committees is needed or we should have only one committee being set up.
If we had only one national committee and there was widespread public dissent to the agreement, then this committee could formulate alternative proposals that would become the basis for new negotiations. Also, this committee could create a document outlining the possible opposition to an agreement and propose alternatives which would become the base for future negotiations. Instead, as in the present situation, we are faced with numerous complaints. As well, when groups make presentations in front of this one committee, they will be thinking on a national rather than on a provincial level. When one makes a presentation to a provincial committee, one argues on how the agreement will affect the specific province. My proposal would force the public to decide if the agreement is good for the country as a whole rather than how it will simply affect one province.
Turning to the Quebec question, as I have stated before, I do not feel that Quebec will ever separate from Canada. The simple fact is that business and the people of Quebec are now coming to recognize that the province cannot afford to separate. The damage to the province, both at the economic and international level, would be devastating. At the same time, English Canada must realize that Quebec feels a threat to its language and culture.
Any new negotiations must start first with the assumption that the rights protected in the charter are paramount over any other law. Then Quebec should propose what powers it feels are necessary to protect its language and culture. When this proposal is made, the government of Quebec must demonstrate how these powers will protect its language and culture. The federal government should not simply hand over these powers until Quebec demonstrates that these powers are required. Also, any powers offered to Quebec must be offered to all of the other provinces. I do not believe in creating a special legislative status for one province. At the same time, I am quite prepared to recognize the distinct characteristic of Quebec within Canada in the preamble of the Constitution. Doing this would ensure that we in English Canada realize that there is a different language and culture in Quebec and that this difference is a fundamental part of a prosperous Canada.
I would now like to turn to analysing the most popular Senate reform proposal, the triple E Senate. The triple E Senate calls for equal representation of all provinces and elected senators, which it claims will make the Senate more effective. For me this is an outrageous proposal that threatens national unity more than any separation movement within Canada.
First, this proposal is so undemocratic that I cannot understand how it has any following within the country. What the authors of this proposal are saying is that the value of a person's vote in the less populated provinces is worth more than those from the more populated provinces. Is this what we consider democratic? If you agree, then I would suggest that you find a dictionary and discover the meaning of "democracy."
As well, the authors of this proposal have never demonstrated how this type of Senate would work in conjunction with our system. As you know, we have a British, responsible style of government. This means we have two houses, of which one is elected, and the government must have the confidence of the elected House. The Lower House is distributed on the formula of representation by population, while the Upper House is distributed along regional lines.
With this definition in mind, how can an elected Senate ensure that this will continue? If it is not to continue, then the authors of this proposal must tell the voters how their system would work. There is a group in favour of an elected Senate who argue that the senators should be given some form of suspensive veto. This would mean that the Senate could block but not kill legislation. If this is to be the case, what is the use of having an elected Senate? There are numerous procedural ways for the opposition to block or stall legislation.
I would argue that in Canada, I do not think there are distinct regions. British Columbia has never considered itself part of the western region. The same can be said for Newfoundland and the maritime region. More important, the economic problems Alberta faces are quite different from those of the other two traditional western provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In my opinion, the formula of dividing and grouping the provinces into regions is a thing of the past. Now each province faces distinct political and economical questions.
The authors of this proposal have never discussed how they would break the rules of party discipline. These rules bind the members to vote along party lines. One must realize that running an election is expensive, so potential candidates will need the backing of parties. When a party backs a candidate, it expects this person to toe the party line if elected. How could we avoid this situation? Supporters have called for the senators to be denied the right to run for re-election. If this was agreed to, why would the elected candidate be responsive to his constituents? This would give carte blanche to the senator to say and do as he or she pleases.
1050
The authors of this proposal have not mentioned when elections would be held. Some of them have argued that the elections should be held two years after the federal election. This would mean that the people are not voting for the senators but sending a message to the governing party in Ottawa on how well or badly it is doing. If the elections were held at the same time as national elections, one cannot believe that if a voter votes Liberal for his MP that same person will then turn around and vote Conservative for his senator.
Finally, supporters have argued that this proposal would make the national government more responsive to regional concerns, thus strengthening national unity. For me, quite the opposite would happen. As engaging in an election for two senators is much less expensive than engaging in a national election for their provincial MPs, situations will arise where a party which enjoys support on a provincial level only, such as the Parti québécois or the Social Credit Party in British Columbia, will field candidates for the national level. The candidates from these parties will most likely be concerned more with their provincial concerns than national concerns. One could imagine a Senate dominated by people working to further their province, even at the expense of the national wellbeing. What the supporters of the triple E proposal are doing is switching the Senate from an institution which deals with regional concerns to one which deals with provincial concerns only. Would this strengthen national unity or slowly kill the country?
My alternative is the abolishment of the Senate and at the same time a relaxation of the rules of party discipline. The obvious savings to the taxpayer need not be mentioned if the Senate is abolished, though the relaxation of the rules of party discipline needs further explanation.
If one were to relax the rules of party discipline, the first step would be that Canadians must realize that if the governing party loses a vote it would not have to call an election. Although legally under our rules the party only has to resign if it loses a non-confidence vote, it has become convention in our system that if the governing party loses a vote it must resign. The governing party would need to ensure the support of their members only on important pieces of legislation. On money bills or bills that are part of the government election platform, the MPs would be required to follow the party line. Loosening of party discipline would increase the role played by the ordinary MP.
Let me remind the committee that this is not a radical suggestion, because this is how the system in the United Kingdom works. What is important is that my alternative would ensure that the elected members are working first for their constituents, then for the nation as a whole. The triple E Senate has the senators working first for their provinces, second for their constituents and finally for the nation.
In closing, the triple E senate would not be effective, elected and equal. It would end up being undemocratic and destructive to the country.
The Chair: Excuse me. You are getting towards the end of the time. If you could sum up, perhaps, the rest of the brief.
Mr Stewart: There are only about four pages left. Would it be possible to continue?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Stewart: One of the most important problems facing Canadians today is resolving outstanding band claims with the aboriginal community. Before one can try to answer this question, we must first answer two other questions. Do aboriginal people want to be considered as Canadian citizens? If they want to consider themselves citizens of the first nations, should their claims be addressed in our Constitution? Second, how do we view history? Did the European settlers conquer the aboriginal people or did we come over and form an agreement with the aboriginal people to develop a new nation where all would be equal partners? Determining each person's feelings about these questions determines how we approach the aboriginal problem.
I myself take the view that the Europeans conquered the native population. At the same time, I am only willing to accept that aboriginal land claims be addressed in our Constitution if the aboriginal community accepts that they are full members of the Canadian nation. This means they obey our laws, pay taxes and function as normal Canadians do. If aboriginal people do not see themselves as citizens of Canada, then their claims should not be addressed within the Constitution but rather through agreements between the individual aboriginal leaders and the federal government.
I would argue that the goals and aspirations of the aboriginal community are quite splintered. What one group from Ontario wants is quite different from what another group from Alberta wants. That is why I am calling for the reserve system to be abolished and for aboriginal people to be brought into Canadian society. Let me point out that at this time I do not believe the eradication of the reserve system would solve all the problems facing the aboriginal community, but I believe it is a step forward to solving these problems.
I believe the Indian Act has created a situation of social despair for the aboriginal community. The act has taken the incentive away from the aboriginal people to find work. As well, the continuation of the reserve system will ensure that racism towards aboriginal peoples continues.
As the aboriginal community is placed away from society, people do not understand the hopes and fears of the aboriginal community. On occasion, when someone is scared or does not understand something, this usually turns into hatred. Also, most leaders of the aboriginal community argue that they need the reserves to protect their culture and traditional lifestyle. The leaders argue that by keeping the aboriginal people away from the white community it will ensure that their lifestyle is protected. I would argue that their lifestyle is not under attack from the white community, but rather technological change. Technological change has created a situation where my life is different from my father's. I would rather see aboriginal people brought into society instead of being kept on the outside looking in. Clearly, Canadians as a whole would benefit if they had daily contacts with aboriginal people. Both groups could learn from each other to create an improved and more tolerant Canada.
I would now like to turn my attention to two new proposals that may be used in this round of constitutional negotiation. I argue that neither of the methods should be used. Let me first deal with the constituent assembly proposal, and then I will turn my attention to the use of a public referendum.
The constituent assembly is being proposed by the eminent scholar Peter Russell. Professor Russell is considered one of the top academics in the political science field. His proposal is that the legislatures send an all-party delegation to negotiate for the province. At the same time, this group could select any members from the private sector to accompany it on these negotiations. As well, Professor Russell has proposed that as Quebec has stated it will only negotiate with the federal government, we could have one constituent assembly for English Canada and then we could send a delegation to negotiate with Quebec. I am currently in a class being taught by Professor Russell and I have great respect for him, but this proposal will never work.
The first problem involves the negotiating process with Quebec. For me, we are giving Quebec a moral victory if we negotiate in the way Professor Russell has proposed. It would imply to Quebec that we in English Canada feel it is more important than the other provinces and that in reality it is almost a separate nation. I for one am not willing to say this.
Second, Professor Russell proposes that members from the private sector could be included in the negotiations. Professor Russell has argued that by including the leaders of such groups as aboriginal, women or multicultural, the process will be more democratic. I would argue that for three reasons this will make the negotiations more undemocratic.
For me, the inclusion of people who have not been elected in these negotiations is offensive. What recourse will the average voter have to these people? At least with politicians, we have a chance of voting them out of office. As well, why would any of these leaders of private interest groups negotiate? They are there to ensure that the interests of their members are answered. They are not there thinking of what is good for the country as a whole. The final reason is that Professor Russell's proposal is only spreading out the group of elites involved instead of involving the average voter.
There are two final problems with this proposal.
One, politicians will not stake out any constitutional positions during the election. As all-party assemblies will be used, the politicians will argue that they cannot formulate a constitutional position until they consult with the other political parties. The voter has a right to know how a certain politician feels about basic constitutional issues.
Two, the inclusion of all these groups will make the negotiating process impossible. First, there will be too many issues on the table. I believe the process of dealing with one issue at a time is the proper approach. Second, as I have stated previously, the leaders of these private sector groups will not negotiate but hold out until they get everything they want. I was quite dismayed that a person with such a high stature in Canada could come out with such a proposal that would make constitutional agreement almost impossible.
I would now like to discuss the possibility of holding a national referendum. I would like to remind the members of this committee that there are no provisions within the amending process to allow for public referenda. Also, a referendum system will place Canada in a constitutional straitjacket. In Australia, where a national referendum system exists, there have only been eight amendments, while our elitist-driven formula had 24 amendments. So a referendum system could make constitutional amendments even more difficult than they already are.
I would also argue that if we wish to create unity through constitutional agreements, a referendum system will divide the country beyond recognition. A referendum will split apart families, towns, cities and even provinces. When the votes are counted, each province will know which other provinces supported them. I plead, as a person who went through the referendum in Quebec and saw personally how devastating this process can be on families, against having a national referendum system. As well, I wonder how we could have a national referendum when 80% of the voters said they did not understand the Meech Lake accord. I am not saying the average voter is not intelligent, but only trained individuals can understand the workings of a Constitution.
In closing, I have a message to all Canadians. Please realize that we are not in a crisis situation when we have been discussing constitutional issues for 65 years. Second, when agreements are reached, people should not get overexcited. One will never know what kind of Constitution we have until the courts get through interpreting the agreement. If one examines the original intent of the "peace, order and good government" clause and what emerged from court interpretations, one can see two entirely different views. I would also argue that we must not negotiate any new constitutional agreements for a minimum of 20 years. This time period will allow for future leaders to fully comprehend how the judiciary has interpreted the agreement.
1100
Finally, I would reiterate that we are not in a crisis situation. The calls that we are in a crisis situation are coming from the academic community, which wishes to ensure that it have political consulting jobs and a market for its books. I would say the only good thing that has come out of these constitutional talks is that future political scientists like myself are presented with numerous opportunities in this growth industry of constitutional politics.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Stewart. Because you have gone over time, we are going to have to carry on with the next speaker. There will not be any time for questions, I am afraid.
ROBERTO PERIN
The Chair: I call Roberto Perin.
M. Perin: Monsieur le Président, honorables députés, je me présente devant vous ce matin en tant qu'auteur et historien, et en tant que personne qui a médité les problèmes du Canada depuis une bonne vingtaine d'années.
Je crois que l'Ontario, à cause de son poids démographique et économique, peut jouer un rôle très important dans le réaménagement constitutionnel qu'on est appelé à vivre dans les prochains mois et les prochaines années.
Je crois qu'il serait souhaitable que l'Ontario se fasse le porte-parole d'une vision d'un Canada pluraliste, tolérant, où les peuples, en somme les communautés culturelles et linguistiques, puissent se sentir chez elles. Je crois qu'il est difficile à l'heure actuelle de prévoir quelque sorte de Canada on va avoir suite à ces discussions constitutionnelles. Chose certaine, je crois que le Québec aura beaucoup plus de pouvoir dans les domaines social et culturel.
Je crois aussi que la population du Québec, relativement à la population du reste du Canada, s'en va en diminuant et qu'il faut donc prévoir dans les années à venir qu'il va y avoir plus de pouvoir qui ira au Québec. Il est tout à fait naturel qu'on veuille concentrer le maximum de pouvoir politique au Québec, qui est la seule province à majorité francophone.
Quel que soit le nouvel arrangement constitutionnel, il y a des choses qui ne changeront pas. Le fait est qu'il y a au nord du 49e parallèle une entité géographique où il y a à l'heure actuelle 19 millions d'anglophones et 6 millions de francophones. Quel que soit l'arrangement constitutionnel, que ce soit la superstructure de M. Bourassa ou des commissions mixtes qui géreront, n'est-ce pas, l'économie de cette entité géographique, il est clair qu'il va y avoir un fonctionnariat qui va devoir fonctionner dans les deux langues et que le bilinguisme, quel que soit l'arrangement auquel on arrivera avec le Québec, existera à mon avis pour toujours.
Alors, je veux me poser la question : est-ce que la décentralisation de pouvoir à l'égard du Québec doit nécessairement entraîner la décentralisation des pouvoirs à l'égard des autres provinces ? À mon avis la réponse devrait être non, parce que le Canada a joué un rôle très important dans la préservation de la culture canadienne-anglaise au niveau fédéral. Ottawa a toujours joué un rôle très important en créant des institutions qui font que le Canada peut se distinguer des États-Unis. Alors, même si le Québec devenait plus autonome, souverain ou même indépendant, je crois qu'au Canada anglais il faut un gouvernement fort, et je crois que l'Ontario pourrait se faire le porte-parole de cette vision, d'un gouvernement à Ottawa qui conserve les aspects du pays qui sont distincts des États-Unis.
Je crois aussi qu'en se faisant le porte-parole d'un gouvernement central fort, il faut aussi qu'il se souvienne que l'Ontario a toujours été pour un gouvernement central fort mais que ce n'est peut-être pas pour des motifs d'équité à l'égard des autres régions, que souvent l'Ontario s'est fait le porte-parole de cette vision du Canada pour promouvoir ses propres intérêts. Je crois donc que l'Ontario devrait se montrer sensible aux besoins des autres régions, peut-être en adoptant certaines des formules que l'Ouest, par exemple, suggère en ce moment : l'élection d'un sénat qui représente toutes les régions également et peut-être une Cour suprême dont les juges soient désignés sur listes fournies par les provinces. À mon avis, l'importance d'un gouvernement central fort au Canada est évident; l'histoire le démontre.
II y a trois domaines dans lesquels ce gouvernement doit faire sentir son poids : dans le domaine culturel, le domaine social et le domaine économique. Alors je me pose aussi la question : quel sera le visage culturel du Canada advenant un Québec souverain ou même indépendant ? Et j'ai lu avec beaucoup d'intérêt un article d'un éditorialiste au Globe and Mail qui suggérait que le bilinguisme et le multiculturalisme seraient abolis si le Québec devenait souverain ou indépendant. Je crois qu'au contraire, l'Ontario devrait réaffirmer ses politiques et faire en sorte qu'elles soient respectées ailleurs au Canada.
Pourquoi, par exemple, le bilinguisme ? Pourquoi devrait-on renforcer les droits des francophones en Ontario ? Parce que tout d'abord ils constituent 500,000 et plus si on s'en tient à la présentation du premier intervenant ce matin -- 500,000 personnes au moins qui ont le français comme langue maternelle et qui parlent cette langue couramment.
Il est donc important de donner à cette minorité la possibilité de s'exprimer et de s'épanouir. Il faut se rappeler aussi que les francophones sont ici depuis le tout début de l'histoire de la province et qu'ils forment des communautés consistantes dans le nord et dans l'est de la province. Donc, je crois que le gouvernement de l'Ontario devrait reconnaître le droit à ces francophones de contrôler et de gérer leurs institutions sociales et culturelles. Ils devraient avoir leurs propres conseils scolaires à travers la province, des collèges communautaires et une université francophone. Je crois que la Loi 8 devrait être renforcée de sorte que les francophones à travers la province de l'Ontario pourront avoir accès aux services gouvernementaux en leur langue tant sur le plan local que sur le plan de la province.
L'Ontario ne peut pas reculer dans ce domaine, il doit aller de l'avant. Il doit se faire le porte-parole des droits linguistiques des francophones auprès des autres provinces et participer activement aux organismes francophones internationaux afin de se faire le promoteur de la langue et de la culture française, qui est après tout une composante culturelle de cette province.
Pour ce qui est des communautés culturelles, il est inconcevable, à mon avis, qu'on abolisse le multiculturalisme. D'ailleurs, je me demande comment on réussirait à bafouer si facilement les droits des communautés culturelles qui se sont affirmées dans ce pays depuis une bonne vingtaine d'années. Les immigrants et leurs enfants et leurs petits-enfants doivent avoir un sentiment de fierté dans leurs racines culturelles. Ils doivent se sentir part entière de cette société en Ontario. Alors, il faut d'une part que l'Ontario continue à promouvoir le pluralisme et la fierté des origines, et d'autre part qu'il fasse en sorte que les immigrants se sentent partie intégrante de la société d'accueil. Je crois aussi qu'il faut absolument que l'Ontario continue les politiques de promotion des minorités visibles dans la province et qu'il consolide ces politiques.
Pour ce qui est des Amérindiens, je sais que cette question relève tout d'abord du fédéral, mais je crois que, dans ce processus de renégociation constitutionnelle, l'Ontario peut faire peser son poids dans la balance sur cette question et je crois qu'il faut que l'Ontario se fasse le porte-parole d'une résolution juste et équitable des revendications territoriales des Amérindiens à travers le Canada. Sur son propre territoire, il doit leur reconnaître le droit de contrôler et de gérer leurs affaires dans les domaines municipal, policier, juridique, éducatif, hospitalier et social. II doit reconnaître la priorité du droit aborigène dans les territoires amérindiens.
1110
À mon avis, le processus de réaménagement constitutionnel peut être créateur. On peut concevoir un meilleur Canada, un Canada plus tolérant, plus humain, plus équitable. L'Ontario, à mon avis, est bien placé pour assurer qu'on en arrive là. À cause de sa proximité du Québec et des multiples liens qui unissent les deux provinces, l'Ontario peut se faire le trait d'union entre les aspirations du Québec et celles du Canada anglais. À cause de son importante minorité francophone, il peut se faire le porte-parole des droits linguistiques.
À cause de sa population multiculturelle, multiraciale et multiethnique, il peut revendiquer un Canada plus tolérant, plus juste, plus sensible à l'endroit de la diversité. Il faut, pour ce faire, une vision. Le défi est devant vous ; il suffit que vous cueilliez le défi.
M. le Président: Nous avons quelques questions. Mrs O'Neill first.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Perin. I found that you have a vision, you yourself. I am glad you are in the position you are. I found it uplifting. I do still have one point of the matter that I do feel I would like you to say a little bit more about. Throughout the entire paper you are talking about Ontario's leadership role, and I am not as sure as you are that a couple of changes to Senate and judges would assure us the co-operation of all the other provinces of Canada, so I wonder if you have thought more about that. Because, you know, we go into the so-called front with a whole lot of people, with a whole lot of ideas that big Ontario is making all the rules again. You seem to say a couple of amendments at the central level, and they are institutional amendments, would fix that. Can you allay my fears?
M. Perin : Il est évident qu'il y a d'autres problèmes. Il y a des problèmes économiques, par exemple, des problèmes de répartition de la richesse qui ne seront pas résolus par de simples amendements juridiques, constitutionnels ou institutionnels.
Je sais aussi que les provinces Maritimes ont leur propre agenda et que les provinces de l'Ouest, par contre, vont dans une autre direction. Mais je crois que même dans l'Ouest il y a un désir de doter le Canada d'un gouvernement central fort. Ce n'est peut-être pas l'opinion de tous, mais je pense que c'est une opinion majoritaire. Je crois qu'il faut aller de l'avant, qu'il faut reconnaître que ces changements institutionnels ne changeront pas la structure de base sociale ou économique mais que c'est un premier pas.
Jusqu'ici, en tout cas, à moins que je ne me trompe, l'Ouest n'a pas fait d'autres demandes pour un réaménagement constitutionnel. Je pense que c'est un début et il faut un peu de bonne volonté au-delà de ça. Mais je crois que, à travers le pays, à part le Québec, il y a un sentiment très fort dans les Maritimes et un sentiment peut-être moins fort mais quand même, je crois, majoritaire dans les provinces de l'Ouest pour qu'il y ait un gouvernement central fort.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Merci. Please continue to struggle with this and encourage your students to do so.
Mr Offer: Mr Perin, my question deals with your presentation, talking about Ontario as a pluralistic province and it should take a lead role in that area. You have alluded to, in that respect, the question of Bill 8 and being able to express oneself under Bill 8 through the French language. I am wondering if you might be able to share with us whether you feel that the role of Ontario in the future should be, if not an expansion of Bill 8, then certainly a parallel piece of legislation which incorporates other languages, other than obviously the French language, and whether you feel that this is certainly an underlying right that all Ontarians and in fact Canadians should have and that the right to express oneself in another language is a matter of the numbers, the amount of people in a particular district, as opposed to an inherent right of one particular language over another.
M. Perin : Je crois qu'il faut se rendre à l'évidence qu'il y a beaucoup de groupes linguistiques dans la province et que, s'il fallait offrir des services à tous ces groupes, on n'en finirait pas.
Laissez-moi préfacer mes remarques en disant que je suis fils d'immigrants, alors je fais partie de ce Canada multiculturel, n'est-ce pas ? Donc, j'espère que je n'apporte pas de préjugés dans ce que je dis.
Je crois que si on analyse la réalité sociologique et culturelle des immigrants sur une ou deux ou trois générations, on remarque un affaiblissement de la langue des communautés culturelles. À partir de la deuxième génération, c'est déjà plus que la moitié qui ne parlent plus la langue d'origine. Donc, le processus est très rapide pour les communautés culturelles. Je reconnais que c'est très important.
Par exemple, mon épouse est assistante sociale et elle a travaillé dans un hôpital. Elle a vu que c'est très important, par exemple, pour les personnes âgées qui ne parlent pas l'anglais de recevoir des services dans leur langue dans les hôpitaux parce que c'est quand même une situation très difficile pour les malades. Il y a des services comme ça qu'on devrait offrir. Mais de là à dire qu'il faudrait légiférer ces droits, je crois que c'est tout un pas à franchir parce que, évidemment, ce serait extrêmement compliqué.
Alors, la prémisse de ma présentation est qu'il y a des peuples qui ont des droits historiques dans ce pays et ce sont les autochtones et les francophones. Les autres, on devrait autant que possible offrir des droits linguistiques ou des services dans leur langue mais je ne pense pas qu'on puisse légiférer dans ce domaine-là.
JOHN CRISPO
The Chair: I call John Crispo.
Dr Crispo: The last time I appeared before a select committee in Ontario it seemed to be a happier occasion. I was appearing at the time when the leaders of all three political parties in Ontario were endorsing Meech Lake, and I must say I was extremely proud of them. I thought it was a historic moment in this province, because while there was opposition to Meech Lake, and it was deep-seated, it seemed to me the three leaders of the parties were rising above it and thinking of Canada as a whole. Well, that period has passed. I never thought Meech Lake would have solved everything. I did feel it would have bought us time to resolve what I knew were continuing issues. The unfortunate thing is, now we neither have Meech Lake nor time.
I think we have got to the point where there are only two remaining alternatives, and I guess I could be accused of speaking from a Quebec perspective when I say this. I guess I should say that I share the Quebec perspective at this time, although I do not entirely support it. I hope that is not a contradiction.
1120
What are the two alternatives? The first is an asymmetrical Canada, with Quebec having special status. I think we should stop mincing with words like "distinct society." The issue all along has been, are we prepared as a country to give Quebec special status? That would clearly be far beyond Meech Lake. I do not think Canadians ever realized what was happening to them when the media and the opponents of Meech Lake so distorted it and twisted it that it bore no resemblance to what it really was.
It is too late now. It will be far beyond Meech Lake. It would have to fall short of the Allaire report in Quebec, because it goes too far. I do not know precisely what form it would take, but I really believe that unless English Canadians are finally prepared to recognize and put in print what has been an historic reality in this country from the beginning of time, or at least from the beginning of Confederation, that Quebec is the only province that deserves special status because it is the only province that represents one of our three founding peoples. That is what it is all about. It is special. It has its own culture, its own language, its own civil code. It is unique and somehow we are not big enough in English Canada to recognize that.
By now you will begin to recognize that my preferred position is the first choice, the asymmetrical Canada.
The alternative is some bastardized combination of the Belgian language model and the Swiss confederal system. Again, I cannot tell you precisely what form it would take, but I fear that on the Belgium side it would mean a French Quebec, an English rest of Canada and a much-diminished bilingual capital called Ottawa-Hull, or whatever it would be called. On the language side I think it would really mean the end of bilingualism as we have known it. I am not saying there would be no English in Quebec and no French in English Canada, but I think there would be a clear split and bilingualism would only survive in what was left of a capital zone.
As for the reference to the Swiss confederal system, it is hard to believe that any country is more decentralized than we are, but Switzerland is. The Swiss government has virtually no power except in defence and foreign affairs and trade and monetary policy. That is the other alternative, starkly stated, that Ottawa -- look at the Allaire report; I suspect similar thinking will be coming out of the Bélanger-Campeau report in Quebec -- Ottawa would have virtually no power and the regions -- let's not talk about the provinces, because accompanying this proposal is the notion that we would combine something in the Maritimes and combine something in the west and we would end up four or five regions.
Well, I have made it clear. I would much prefer the first of these two alternatives, but neither one of them is likely to prove acceptable in English Canada, so it does not matter a tinker's dam what I would prefer.
I suppose if we really worked at it we might get one or the other. Again, I hope it would be the first. I am rather dubious. So I think it is time -- and I do not want to be unduly pessimistic; there may be better ways of putting it -- I think we better begin to think about what may be the inevitable, which is a divorce. I do not want a divorce. I love this country so much and I know without Quebec we would probably not survive. Neither would they. The irony of it all is, if we do come apart, the danger is we will all fall bit by bit into the United States, and Quebec will be committing suicide for us and itself, because it will end up Louisiana north.
If we are going to have a divorce, the question then becomes, how do we go about it? Again, it will be obvious what my choice is. We could do it. We could do it civilly, maturely, responsibly and sensibly. That would obviously be my preference. We could end up with a common market, perhaps a common currency and shared assets and debts and work it all out. That is what I would prefer, if it comes to that.
The alternative is that we become bitter, emotional and irrational, perhaps even worse. I do not want to contemplate. In other words, it is a typical divorce. There is no agreement, there is no consensus, there is a total breakdown. We do not even end up with a common market if it gets too bad. There is nothing left between us.
I have made it clear where I stand on this one. If we are going to get divorced, let's do it amicably. I am frightened we will not. What is my conclusion? The best-case scenario is the one I began with, and that is that we work out a new Canada on an asymmetrical basis, with Quebec having the special status it has always had and always deserved. The second best is a reasonably amicable parting of the ways. I guess beyond these possibilities, I really do not want to think about it. My colleagues have said "Don't speculate about it out loud," so I will not.
I guess my message to you is that Ontario's position could turn out to be critical. I know we are resented all over the country, except perhaps in Quebec, but at this vital time in our history I would love to see some real statesmanship again from Ontario I knew we sought during the Meech Lake accord. I would love to see all three leaders of the parties in Canada come up with an approach that is sensible and all the other words I could use, but I fear for my country as I never have before, because I do not see much goodwill on either side at this stage.
That is really my conclusion. I would add a footnote that only this morning, forgive me, I read over your document which was to help those appearing before you and I am more than prepared to discuss other items with you. Naturally I would love to discuss how we can secure our future in the international economy. I would of course opt for more liberalized trade and a recognition in Canada that if we do not become competitive it does not matter, again, a tinker's dam what we do. We are in dire straits. But I wanted to concentrate on what I take to be the most immediate and telling challenge that confronts this country, the one that could tear it apart.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Crispo. There are a number of questions and I would like to try to accommodate as many or all of those that we can, but ask people to try to keep their prefaces short. Mr Malkowski first.
Mr Malkowski: I would like to thank you very much for your honesty and your perspective on these issues. You were speaking of the failure of Meech Lake, as well as the Allaire report, in that it is asking too much. We have 18 months left to consider prior to Quebec's decision regarding the Allaire report. Do you think we should give Quebec this special status, and if not, do not follow the Allaire report at all and make revisions to it, or should we just allow Quebec to proceed forth with the separation?
Dr Crispo: Let me begin by saying I am not sure that we have 18 months. I think the die will be cast long before the referendum is taken, because I think attitudes, if they have not already hardened in Quebec, will be hardened. So I do not think we have 18 months.
I have already said I would opt for special status for Quebec. If you want to use the Allaire report as a basis for looking at what special status would entail, let me just give you a very general answer.
I would do everything possible to delegate to Quebec every conceivable power it needs to pursue its legitimate cultural and linguistic needs. On the other hand, I would fight to retain in the hands of the federal government as much as we can in terms of the economic management of the country. That gets dicey when you come to matters such as education and manpower, but that is the split I would make. "We will give you everything you could conceivably ask for to further your special" -- and I would say treasured -- "cultural and linguistic needs, but do not ask us to give up those things that are essential to drive the national economy of this country."
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you very much. John, you always speak very clearly. I am glad you are using the word "asymmetrical," I am glad you are talking about divorce, because I think these are words that people understand and we have to keep saying more and more these are the kinds of options that are out there.
We were just getting our first summary today of the hearings we have had in the last two weeks, and the greatest cluster is around Ontario taking a leadership role. You mentioned that very briefly. I would like you to say a little more, if you could, about that and about how this committee could be helpful in that direction.
1130
Dr Crispo: I think you have said it. I do not think you can swallow it. I think this committee would have to say Ontario believes so strongly in this country that it does not want to see it disappear. At the same time, we recognize the legitimate aspirations of Quebec, and particularly its francophone citizens, and we are prepared to do what should have been done years ago to recognize that Quebec is unique, must have a special status in this country if it is to survive, and we have to stop pretending that any other province has the right to pretend it has anything like the same rights. And if we do not do that, you might as well forget about it; there is going to be divorce.
I do not know how that would be perceived in the rest of Canada. It might be perceived as another Ontario-Quebec axis trying to do something to the rest of the country. That is the risk I think you would have to take, because I think that is what the choice is. Either we come up with an enduring form of special status that we can all live with, or we are not going to work this out.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: So you are suggesting that is one of the committee's recommendations.
Dr Crispo: I would make it the recommendation.
Mr Eves: Mr Crispo, as we have travelled around the province, primarily the northern part of the province, in the previous two weeks, I think it is fair to say that the majority of the people or witnesses who have appeared before the committee have said that they believe in a strong federal government with national standards for national policies stated by the federal government Canada-wide.
You have talked about special status for the province of Quebec, and I guess the question I would have to you is somewhat along the line of questioning that Mrs O'Neill just asked, and that is, are there other things that we in the province of Ontario can do that will sell special status, if that is the way you want to put it, to the rest of Canada? For example, are there unilateral actions that the province of Ontario can make, such as making itself officially bilingual, and any other aspects that you might have thought of that Ontario can do to take the lead? What can we do?
Dr Crispo: I think what I have said in response to the previous question stands. Ultimately I think we have to bite the bullet on this and recognize what the basic issue is. I have not read about or watched all your hearings. I was -- I hate to use the word again -- frightened by a lot of the things I heard, because I think calling for a strong federal government and a strong united Canada was a way some people found of saying, "There is no way Quebec is going to get anything like what it got in Meech Lake, let alone beyond that." So I think you have to be careful about what they were saying and what they were meaning.
I think we are past the point of gestures. I think, for example, if Ontario now suddenly declared official bilingualism to be its policy in a firmer sense than it has to date, that would not be enough. I think we have gone too far. Somebody said to you there is no crisis. I am not selling books. This is not my field. I just care for my country. I know Peter Russell well and I know what motivates him; it is the same as me. I do not know whether Peter would even call it a crisis. I would call it a crisis.
So I think we are past the stage where we can, I do not want to say grandstand, but I guess I used the word and that is unfair too. If I did not use it, I will use it now, but I do not mean it in the worst sense of it. Tokenism is not going to work any more. We are at the crunch.
Mr Bisson: Mr Crispo, I think you hit the nail on the head. What you are saying is that we are at a point now where there is so much intolerance when it comes to the whole question on both sides of the issue that people are not seeing rationally past this point. I guess my only question to you is, what can we do as politicians and what can we do as citizens in order to get people to start looking at the issue? Because really I think you are right: what happens often is that we lose track of the issue because we are so caught up in the rhetoric. What do we do?
Dr Crispo: You can do what I do and get frustrated. I speak a fair amount around this country and I always try to work this issue in, and what always comes up is Quebec's infamous language bill. Quite frankly, I will never forgive Bourassa for doing what he did not have to do at the wrong time, but I will never forgive English Canadians for their intolerance and lack of understanding.
I do not care what they did with that language bill, Quebec still treats English-speaking people far better than any other province, with the possible exception of New Brunswick, treats French-speaking people. And it does not matter how long or often you say this, that hardly ever gets through in the media. The hysteria gets through, whether it is on one side or the other; what happened in Sault Ste Marie, what happened in -- I do not know, where they stomped on the flag. The CBC in Quebec was just unforgivable. They are bad enough nationally, but in Quebec they played that thing day in, day out, as if it was a general phenomenon.
All you can do is go out and try to talk what I think are the facts and to go beyond the facts and ask whether this country is worth recognizing historical reality. That is all I am talking about. I mean, virtually everything I am talking about in Quebec, they have virtually got.
Mr Bisson: So you are saying the media also has a role in putting forward the facts in a way that people can understand them.
Dr Crispo: Do not get me on the media. I will never forget what they did to Meech Lake. They butchered it. I thought Carstairs and Wells owned both The Journal and Canada AM non-stop. The hyenas and jackals are what the media features. They simplify, they sensationalize and they just confuse. Apparently it sells papers and it sells radio and TV time. I just wish we had a law that required equal time, space and prominence for both sides of arguments and required the media, when it attacks a particular group, to give the other side equal time, space and prominence.
Mr Harnick: In what we have been hearing around the province, free trade is something perceived in a very negative way in Ontario. That has been almost the universal approach and delivery to us. Quebec was probably the most ardent booster of free trade. How do we reconcile, in terms of what Ontario is going to be doing, the position that workers in this province feel with what economically is still perceived as a plus in Quebec?
Dr Crispo: If anything gets me worked up more than the media, it is free trade.
Mr Harnick: I figured we might get some answers.
Dr Crispo: In part because of the media, because if you think they were bad on Meech Lake, they just campaigned against free trade, and they still are. They are publishing the big lie I guess it is: "CLC says 200,000 jobs lost due to free trade." That is a complete crock. The media now repeats it as if it is fact, so it is going to be very difficult. Let me tell you what the problem is.
Mr Harnick: Sort us out.
Dr Crispo: I will tell you what the problem is.
Interjection: In two hours?
Dr Crispo: No, no, I do not need two hours. I just need a couple of seconds. Canadians want to shoot the messenger. They do not want to receive the message. The messenger is the free trade agreement. It is saying, "You're not competitive." We do not want to hear that because that means what we said all along, that free trade was not a panacea, it was an opportunity and it is up to us to take advantage of it -- if we choose to so mismanage our own internal affairs at all levels of government that we are not competitive any more, it is no use branding free trade, either with the US or hopefully with Mexico. It is up to Canadians to get competitive.
That is not the question you asked me, but you have provoked me. I understand what you are saying. People in Ontario are saying, "Well, we were against free trade and those rascals down in Quebec were for it, and that is one more reason why we should not pay any attention to historical reality." I do not know what you do with that.
I do not want to offend my old friend and teaching assistant Bob Rae, but he is still on the old record, he is against all trade. He calls it free trade, but he is against all trade, and Quebec is for all trade. I am on their side and I am against Ontario's position, but as long as Ontario takes this position and Quebec takes that position, it is something anybody can exploit if he wants to.
What am I going to do? I have tried to change Ontario. I had trouble with the previous Premier, I have trouble with this Premier --
Mr Bisson: Keep on trying.
Dr Crispo: -- and I keep on trying.
The Chair: Okay, I think we will end there. Thank you, Dr Crispo, for your candour.
Dr Crispo: Leaving me in trouble with all premiers.
Mr Bisson: I think you should run for the job.
The Chair: An appropriate ending to the presentation.
1140
GEORGE FORSTER
The Chair: I call George Forster.
Mr Forster: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is George Forster. I live in Toronto. I have also lived in and worked in Regina, Montreal and Halifax. I am semiretired and I still work on a part-time basis as a tax and financial planning consultant, and I look forward to seeing you all at the hearings on fair taxation shortly.
My great love is really the study of Canadian history. I am at a disadvantage this morning because, first of all, Professor Crispo is always a hard act to follow and, second, because somehow or other he seems to have got hold of my presentation and been reading it because -- and this is probably the first time this has happened -- he and I agree on 90% of everything he said.
It seems to me, though, the issue facing us is an emotional issue. I have been travelling intensively for the last year or so, and every time I go somewhere in Europe somebody says, "You're a Canadian," and they say: "What are you people doing? You're crazy. You've got probably the best place in the whole world to live and you're determined to destroy it."
If we were determined to destroy this country, have we left anything out? Can you think of anything we should have done that would have speeded up the process? Why are we doing this to each other? We are doing this, in my opinion, because we do not understand our history. We do not teach history very well in the schools, and if we examine our history, we will see that we are still carrying around the baggage of the disputes that took place 100 years ago. What is at the core of it, I am sorry to say, is that there is a streak of religious and linguistic bigotry running all through our past. We like to think of ourselves as kind, friendly, caring, compassionate people, and there is some truth in that, but there is also a substantial element of hypocrisy in that.
A few months ago, do you remember seeing in the papers the federal government announced it was going to give $15 million to South Africa to improve the education of black children? At the same time, we were cutting back on grants for the education of Indian and Eskimo children. We criticize the Soviet Union for its treatment of its minorities. Are we happy about the way we have treated our minorities? How many people have ever seen an Indian reservation? Have you people? Did you get a chance to see a reservation on your trip in the north?
Mrs Y. O'Neill: We will this week.
Mr Forster: Were you proud of it?
When we look at the bigotry that I spoke of, we see that there are faults on both sides, but on balance I believe that French-speaking Canadians have been treated as second-class citizens for nearly 200 years and it is time we stopped and recognized that. That is why more and more of them are telling us that they have had enough and unless things change, they are prepared to go it alone, regardless of the economic consequences.
There is no point in handing them $50 million for a cultural research centre in Montreal. Obviously they are going to be happy to take the money, but it is not a financial or an economic issue. They know their taxes are higher than most every other province and they are prepared to pay the price, if that is what is necessary, to retain their culture, in exactly the same way you and I are willing to pay higher taxes to live in Canada rather than move south.
Our schools teach history very badly and we do not really understand what has actually been going on for the last 150 years. How many of you, for example, have ever heard of D'Alton McCarthy or Honoré Mercier or Joseph-Israel Tarte or Sam Hughes? Each one of these people did his best to drive one more nail in the coffin and we do not even know what they were arguing about, and yet we are still paying the penalty of arguments that if we looked at now we would be ashamed of and horrified that people actually said these things.
I would like to review that with you. After the conquest in 1761 there were something like 60,000 colonists and they were told by General Murray that King George III would confirm "communities and individuals in possession of their property, their laws and their customs." All they had to do was put down their arms. They did. Mind you, remember that these colonists had been completely abandoned by France. France refused to honour their paper money, so a lot of them were bankrupt. In the peace talks, France said it would be quite happy to give up Canada as long as it could keep Guadeloupe and access to the fisheries. The colonists had no support but their history, their language, their customs and their religion.
Some 65 years later, a new Governor of Canada, the Earl of Durham, described Canada as, "Two nations warring in the bosom of a single state." I would like to detour for a minute. Notice the way he said "nations" and "state." There were two nations quarrelling in the bosom of a single state. "Every contest is one of French and English at the outset, or become so ere it has run its course." His solution was to merge Upper Canada and Lower Canada in the expectation that the English-speaking majority would swamp the French-speaking minority. The union took place, but the French-speaking minority was no more willing to give up its history and its language than my great-great-grandfather was willing to give up his allegiance to Britain and the crown when he came to Canada in 1774 as a refugee from the rebellious colonies.
The union of the two colonies came in 1840. One of the consequences of the union was that it gave the Catholic minority in Upper Canada the political strength to demand Catholic schools, just as the English-speaking Protestants of Lower Canada had already been given English-language schools. When we get into this delicate area, I would just like to say as a matter of record that I happen to have grown up in a Protestant home. My attendance at church is perhaps once every three or four years. I personally wish we had a secular school system in this province, but that is beside the point and I am not prepared to start a war over it.
If we look, for example, at the letters of Egerton Ryerson, who was superintendent of education for Ontario, you will find a letter to a school board in 1857 saying, "As French is the recognized language of the country, as well as English, it is quite proper and lawful for the trustees to allow both languages to be taught in their school to children whose parents may desire them to learn both." That is pretty clear, pretty straightforward and certainly well in conformity with what General Murray promised 100 years before that.
But over the next 50 years a stream of new regulations restricted the teaching of French in Ontario. This was a language issue, you understand, not a religious issue, because in 1910 the Catholic Bishop of London declared that he wanted "to wipe out every vestige of bilingual teaching in the schools of this diocese." By 1912, English-speaking Catholics and English-speaking Protestants joined together and forced through new regulations which virtually prohibited the teaching of French in Ontario.
Manitoba had an even more bitter dispute. When Manitoba became part of Canada, French and English became the official languages of the province and there was to be public funding for both French and English schools. But then there started a vicious anti-French campaign implemented by something called the Equal Rights Association. I think we have one of those still, do we not? Did you not encounter one of these the other day, the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada? I wish they had been talking about syntax, but that is a separate issue. I am sorry.
There was a vicious anti-French campaign implemented by the Equal Rights Association headed by D'Alton McCarthy. He was a staunch Ontario Orangeman and a member of Parliament. I will not go into all the details, but there were six or seven years of cases going to the Privy Council in England, elections being run on the issue, and the ultimate end was that by 1896 French schools were a thing of the past in Manitoba.
Naturally, there was an immediate reaction in Quebec and a new political party emerged, le Parti national, led by Honoré Mercier, and he won the next election. Should we be surprised at that? His campaign platform was pretty simple. He said, "If they can break their promises in Manitoba, they can break their promises in Quebec." One of his first acts was to call a convention of provincial premiers to demand more power from the federal government and more revenue from the federal government. Is it not amazing, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
You can find the same kind of anger and bitterness in many issues, all of which have a racial and linguistic and religious component: issues like conscription, and it had that too, but I will not go into that; the issue of whether Canada is going to continue to be part of our glorious Empire or whether it is going to be an independent state, etc.
1150
There were always hotheads in Quebec ready to hit back at the hotheads in Ontario, and these people always represented a minority. If you read what these people said and if you study what they did -- and a good deal of it was in the media; the media then was just as rapacious and just as eager for a headline and never to let the facts interfere with a good story as they are today -- you will find it difficult to understand their excitement over issues which seem to us today of absolutely no importance whatsoever. But it has set up this climate of anger and bitterness that we are paying the penalty for today. Ask yourselves, why did the silent minority permit this to happen and why are we carrying this bitterness and venom around still on our shoulders?
Now our forefathers did many things that we can be proud of and many things we wish they had not done, but we should not be perpetuating the errors of the past. If we can apologize to the Japanese Canadians and the Italian Canadians, I suggest we can also say to our friends in Quebec that a lot of things happened that we are sorry for and that we are ashamed of. That is essentially what I want to say. I just want to add two or three things, if I still have time, relating to what Ontario should be doing.
1. I agree with Professor Crispo wholeheartedly that we need some economic realism for a change. For years we have been more concerned with the distribution of wealth than with the creation of wealth, and we seem to have overlooked the fact that the world has changed. From an economic point of view, the world has changed far more dramatically than anything we have seen since the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago.
We still go on rewarding failure and penalizing success. We will bail out a losing company no matter how inept its management or how rapacious its employees. But we refuse to create a climate in which winners can flourish and create more wealth. To attract jobs, we need a climate that encourages investment and an infrastructure and a skilled workforce. Unless we can do that, our standard of living is in jeopardy.
2. Obviously we need major constitutional change. One of the things that I suggest we need to do is to eliminate or reduce the overlaps and duplications in government. For example, let's look at Metropolitan Toronto. We have six municipalities and then a major municipality. Then we have the department and the municipal board and an assistant deputy minister looking after the Golden Horseshoe, and we have seven planning departments, seven parks departments, seven school boards. Ottawa is even worse. You have got the National Capital Commission to deal with as well as all these things.
The art of government now seems to be to maximize transfer payments from you to me, while I can pass along costs from me to you. In order to do this thing, to juggle transfer payments, we need a new department with a new minister, a new deputy minister and a communications department to tell the world what a wonderful job we are doing.
3. We need enormous amounts of research. We cannot compete with developing countries in labour-intensive industries like clothing. We can only compete with value-added industries, like fibre optics, communications, robotics, etc. Our educational system and our job creation system has not kept up with that.
4. While I admire very much, having watched you on the tube for a week, your patience and your dedication, we also need legislators we can respect. Have you ever seen yourselves on TV during question period? Have you ever watched the House of Commons during question period? I am not talking about the Senate. I do not even want to think about the Senate, much less talk about it. You could behave like that when no one was looking, but now people are seeing what goes on in question period. I would like my grandchildren to respect you and they do not.
5. When we do start to rewrite the Constitution, let's not do it in front of the camera. The negotiations will be difficult and complex enough, but it cannot happen as long as the participants are spending half their time mugging at the camera for the folks back home.
6. Finally, I would like very much, because this is an emotional issue for the province of Ontario, to take the first step in making our peace with the people of Quebec, because a lot of the emotional and bigotry nonsense started in Ontario. Quebec is no longer willing to be in Canada if the Constitution permits other provinces to threaten its language and culture. It is as simple as that. I am suggesting that we take the first step to make sure the people of Quebec understand that we understand their problems and that we are in sympathy with their aspirations. It is as important to us to maintain French-language culture as it is to them.
For example, I would dearly love to see a float from the province of Ontario in the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parade next summer. Even better, I would like to see it selling not tourism but understanding. I would like to see the Premier on that float and I would like to see that float with a big sign on it, saying, "It is easier to patch up a shaky marriage than to go through the agony, the bitterness and the appalling cost of the divorce."
Have you all seen The War of the Roses? I think you should. I think you should get a hold of it and see it. Here was a family who had everything going for it: all kinds of money, a wonderful home, good jobs, kids off to Harvard. They started quarrelling about something or other. They could even remember what it was. They wound up killing each other, beating each other to death with the furniture, and the last thing they did before they died, they reached out, grasped each other's hands and said, "I love you."
I believe that most French Canadians-pardon me, I hate that term; I hate that term and I hate the term "English Canadians." What I meant to say was French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians. I believe that most French-speaking Canadians love this country and want to be part of it.
I can remember 20 years ago Standing in front of Lake Louise talking to a couple of young women from Quebec, who looked up at the glacier and said, "Isn't this a wonderful country?" Last summer I was on Parliament Hill watching a French-speaking family watch the Governor General's footguards changing the guard, and as they went past, here was a little boy about nine years old said, "Notre drapeau." That is the best, all I could understand of his French.
I am not talking about surrender or capitulation, but I am amazed to see out in the streets people with signs and banners saying, "We should negotiate with Saddam Hussein." Where are all the people out on the streets saying, "We want reconciliation with Quebec and we recognize that part of it has been our fault"?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Forster. Do you have a copy of the presentation?
Mr Forster: Yes.
The Chair: Good. Thank you.
STAN MATIAS
The Chair: We will carry on with the next presenter, Stan Matias.
Mr Matias: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, you have an unusual animal in front of you, neither Indian, French or English. I am Polish. I elected this country 38 years ago after being in the RAF for some eight years during the war. I have three children, six grandchildren. This country is in trouble.
I am afraid that the words that were spoken by John F. Kennedy at his inauguration in January on the steps of the Capitol we do not hear any more. I am pro-French. I am pro-Italian. I am pro-Indian. I am pro-English. But then I am Canadian at the most and my children are Canadians and we are very proud of this country. I hate to see this country disintegrate. You could assign some of these problems that we are facing in this country to our parliaments who have done things that really should not have been done. I will give you examples: Manitoba, service of CF-18s. You cannot govern the country and appear to favour one province against another. That would be the same as if you would favour your own children at home and you would create jealousy and resentment. This is what we have.
1200
We unfortunately have a government that is not considering people. I do not know why we have this government now, because from February of 1953 I have always found that the government was responsive to the people. Today I see that laws are made for the lawyers by the lawyers and not for the people. I understand this and I am mad as hell, because I am 71 years old but my grandchildren are aged from 6 to 21 and that hurts their country.
I tried to do best I could. I moved from England because of religious resentment, although I was born a Catholic, I was a non-practising one, but my mother-in-law was resentful of me so I had to find a new country. I made two applications, one to New Zealand, one to Canada. New Zealand told me that because I was born in Poland I would not qualify to go to New Zealand, and I have not eaten lamb since. Canada was generous enough to offer me their doors and I came here to this country and I enjoyed every bit of it, from washing cars at 25 cents an hour to loading trains at CPR for $236 a month. My wife worked at Eaton's for $30, my children delivered the Toronto Star, and we all did all right without any help. I did not know there was any welfare assistance. I did not know anything about anybody. I just knew that I had to work 16 or 18 hours, whatever it takes, in order to provide welfare for my family. Our unit is very, very close, and I wish that we in Canada would be just as close.
I have nothing against the French being determined to live in their own home with their own dignity, with their own traditions. There is nothing unusual in that. I wish that my children spoke 16 languages. I tried to speak at least three or four. I do not resent teaching our children to speak French. I wish they all spoke French because if we could communicate, we would have a better country for all of us.
I am appealing to this assembly here to do the best that you can, and I can tell you how to do it. We should produce model from Switzerland. We should reduce the powers of our federal government. Each province should collect taxes and let the government produce to you their needs for the money. We will dish out to them whatever they require per capita, so they cannot waste money. Because I hear that we owe $16,000 per head. I never had a penny. My children did not have a penny. Where did the money go, $16,000 per head in this country?
You speak of free trade; Mr Crispo spoke about free trade. I am all for free trade, but have the same interest rate as the United States. That is not an even table. If you want to compete with somebody, your capital has to be at the same value as the fellow borrowing next door to you. If they are borrowing at 9% and we put into our industry at 14%, how the hell can we compete because we have five points against us already? Where is the competition? It does not matter how genius we are in producing free trade. We cannot compete on even basis.
I am all for restraining our federal government. I think we have enough governments. I will give you the example of four provinces in east, hardly two and a half million people, as large as Toronto. They have four governments and all the municipal governments. How many governments can we have? Who is going to bring the bread home? This is going far too far and I think that our problems stem from economic discouragement, because we do not have the opportunity to create wealth so we could pass it on to our children. I think the governments have neglected their responsibility to a very large extent. I am absolving this new government, because I know Bob Rae has not had time yet to adjust things, but I think he could adjust it by providing an even field of taxation. I do not want to see federal and provincial governments getting tax-free money. Pay yourself what you are entitled to, but pay tax the way I do. I consider this to be a privilege, to pay tax. The country is good to me; I want to pay my tax. I do not want to see lords and us; I want to see all of us being equal. This is what I want to see in this country. If you see that I am mad, I am bloody mad -- pardon my language. I am mad.
I do not want to see this country going through divorce. I have been married 50 years. I do not know what divorce means; I do not want to see it. I want to see the country united. I am appealing to you to do the best you can.
The Chair: Are there any questions? Thank you very much for your presentation to us.
HANS MODLICH
The Chair: I call our last speaker for this morning, Hans Modlich.
Mr Modlich: I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I welcome this opportunity. I speak from the political perspective of a 30-year rank-and-filer in the New Democratic Party. Marilyn Churley will remember my passionate plea for Meech Lake at the federal leadership convention of the party. Bob Rae, of course, made a similar appeal, much more eloquently than I, but I must lament the conspicuous omission of our former national leader in doing the same.
My personal background is that of a self-employed businessman at the present time. I have been a salesman for 10 years in industrial automation. I have worked for the man who brought the chip into Canada, to put it bluntly. I am a trilingual person, of German origin but fluent in English and German and to a lesser extent in French. I am in fact officially a francophone Canadian. I chose to take my citizenship in French. I lived five years in Quebec, during the referendum period. I must say I never felt any hostility towards my background. I am also half Swiss, to echo John Crispo's concerns, and would like to point out to you that Switzerland is, with its formula of federalism, commemorating 700 years of federation this year.
My objective is to join those who are calling for a reasoned and constructive approach that recognizes the reality and the legitimacy of the present mood in Quebec for sovereignty. I would like to echo, for instance, the call by Ken Bolton made to you in Sioux Lookout, and many people today, for an "amicable divorce" -- I personally would call it an amicable separation -- people such as Reg Whitaker, Roger Gibbons, academics, and of course John Crispo.
My premise to you is that for 135 years Confederation has been singularly designed to obscure and obliterate the fact that Quebec is a nation unto itself. This marriage contract, Confederation, is now on the rocks. The only substantive intercourse left is that on an economic plane. Quebec is set on the road to sovereignty. I read an excellent article this morning in the Globe and Mail about why Quebec will wait no longer, Michel Sarra-Bournet, Carleton University.
Federalist renewal formulas have exhausted their credibility and will only worsen the backlash in English Canada. My advice as a multinational marriage counsellor -- self-appointed -- is let's have a sombre, sober, but still amicable separation agreement instead of an acrimonious, jingoistic brawl of a divorce. Let's not launch yet another federal offensive as launched by Mulroney, Chrétien and lately chimed in by Wells, now that he is on side via Hibernia.
Let's do what Gorbachev will not do in the Baltic; let's recognize the right of Quebec as a nation to determine its own future inside or outside of Canada, and recognize also that Confederation has had an enormously disrupting effect on English Canada and it is now English Canada's round. It is now our turn to put our own house in order.
1210
I go further. I claim that only the NDP is capable of leading English Canada through such a decade of national reconciliation and healing.
We must reassert our own values, not the American values. We must adopt policies of independence and social reconstruction, not of Reaganomics. Only such a renewed Canada might entice Quebec for a possible partnership in the year 2000.
My 10-point program for a renewed English Canada: I will obviously echo calls I have heard this morning for a streamlined government. We are overgoverned. I cannot afford five levels of government. I cannot afford a Senate, for that matter, and I cannot afford that one arm of government does not know what the other one is doing. A statistic I ran across: in Quebec, in 1975, with six million people it had as many civil servants as California with 23 million.
My second point is that we must equalize by population the size of the federated units. We can do that in two ways. We can either consolidate roughly into regions of equal size -- maritime unions and prairie unions have been talked about. We can, on the other hand, break up Ontario into a greater Toronto area, eastern, northern, western. Northern Ontario will probably echo that sentiment. I would like to point out to you that Berlin is a province in the new federated Germany. Why could the greater Toronto area not be treated as such? That would greatly lend itself to streamlining the excessive number of levels of government.
We must eliminate the overlapping federal jurisdictions. In health I have no quarrel with each province deciding how much to spend on medicare. In fact, I would contest that we need to return to the original -- I think it was Swift Current, Saskatchewan -- medicare model pioneered under Tommy Douglas's government. Women will do just fine without being criminalized for the right to exercise their choice of procreation.
Pensions: My main concern is that the plan does not go broke. I do not so much care where it comes from.
Media: Why not give each region its own autonomy? I just learned the other day that Germany leaves the jurisdiction for the media at the provincial level, and Germany has not disintegrated. In fact, I find the coverage of the Gulf war crisis in Germany much more objective than here.
First nations need local self-government, not a patronizing Ottawa whose mandarins consume half of the tax dollars.
My fourth point is that we do it democratically. Alienation from government and politicians is so deep that it will take a long time to activate real grass-roots participation. Constituent assemblies, assemblies such as these, will come out.
I am struck by the almost consensus and the quality of contributions you are hearing today. It is not echoed by what I read in the press. For an open government it is absolutely mandatory that you admit mistakes and correct them.
Mechanisms for accountability is my fifth concern. We have right now a Prime Minister with the biggest majority ever in the House and the lowest popularity in the polls. Why not incorporate impeachment and recall powers in the new Canada? Government by referendum, not by behind-the-scenes lobbies. Referendums, by the way, have stood the Swiss confederation in good stead for 700 years. It would not hurt for us to have had referendums, even a referendum that might have reintroduced briefly capital punishment. I personally was very concerned when three parties in Ontario took it upon themselves to pass Bill 30 without recourse to the polls.
We need a fairer taxation system. The book on that subject has been written by Linda McQuaig, called Behind Closed Doors, or How the Rich Won Control of Canada's Tax System and Ended Up Richer. We need a tax agenda that is not made in Washington.
Similarly, we need to heal the rift on trade policy. To some extent the earlier discussion with John Crispo hinted at the disparity between Quebec's and Canada's view on that subject. We must also, while we favour and recognize the essential need for multinational corporations such as Northern Telecom, demand loyalty on the part of big business to invest in Canada the profits it has earned in Canada.
We must heal the rift and the backlash against Quebec. Two speakers, John Crispo, everyone has addressed this concern. Clean up the mistakes like the CF-18 maintenance contract award. We cannot afford any more Trudeau-era arrogance and abuse of powers.
Bilingualism must come from self-motivation, not by decree. We must accord the Franco-Ontarian the same education rights as the English minority enjoys in Quebec. We must teach a candid understanding of the historic wrongs that have been committed against Quebec. People already have mentioned the banning of French instruction in Manitoba; similarly, regulation 17 in Ontario in 1912; the ceding of Labrador by Westminster in 1927. Most recently, in all our memories, we must apologize to Quebec for perpetrating the big lie of the "apprehended insurrection."
We need a made-in-Canada foreign policy. We need an end to Canadian complicity in the exploitation of the Third World.
And that brings me to my last point. At the highest level of government, we need to reform the United Nations charter itself to inscribe in it the right of self-determination of national minorities to determine their own future, and that should be incorporated in the charter. We must reassert the powers of the general assembly, which is being bypassed in this current crisis. Canada can play an exemplary role in the conflict resolution right on our own doorstep with Quebec. We can then go on and challenge Russia, Israel and Iraq to all do the same. My concern is that the unresolved national questions are the biggest threat to peace both in Canada and the world as a whole.
We must settle with the west coast Indians the first nations land claims. Whose hydro is it in Labrador? What about the Dene, Inuit nations, Mr Wells? Whose golf course is it in Oka? Whose oil is it in Kuwait? Is it the First World's or the Third World's?
I have enclosed a scrapbook in the back of my presentation which contains a number of articles on that subject. One of them is, for instance, an excerpt, and I apologize I did not get to translate it, from the German newspaper, Die Zeit. That really raises some penetrating questions. When was the emir's family compact last elected? How can we have been so hoodwinked about a war that is so blatantly a colonial war for control of oil? Do we not believe that Canadian oil should belong to Canadians? Mr Bush, what you are doing to Baghdad is not my idea of a kinder, gentler America. The USA may win militarily but it can only lose politically, and I predict that this war will be the Suez of America and Bush will become another Anthony Eden.
We are still today on the verge of a Third World War, of a holocaust that will involve Israel, then Iran and, through Georgia, possibly Russia. We are not out of the woods yet. Still, we have not even had a debate in our own Parliament on this new offensive posture of our own forces. I oppose the abuse and the exceeding of the UN mandate to do a so-cabled liberation of Kuwait.
It is indeed the responsibility of social democrats to speak out for peace. A virtually unreported event in the western media was on 12 January of this year: 100,000 East Berliners commemorated the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht 71 years ago. Those people, for anybody's information, were leading opponents of the First World War and the German Social Democratic Party.
Dare we imagine this century had the Social Democratic Party of Germany in 1914 voted to oppose the war reparations to the kaiser? Instead, tragically it succumbed to an orgy of jingoism unleashed by the kaiser.
I would like to summarize. I would like to appeal to you to understand what a crucial role and responsibility befalls Ontario's first NDP government to shape what remains of this century and above all to shape the next century.
There is no justification for waiting for better economic times; the issues here are principles, not dollars. We must put basic, fundamental democratic principles first. It is tragic that such a cruel war is needed to remind us how precarious is our planet's peace and democracy. While cholera rages in Peru, famine in Ethiopia, the USA has the nerve to spend a billion bucks a day to topple a dictator. What we have, in essence, is a war by the First World against the aspirations of the Third World.
I want to end with a personal appeal to Bob Rae: practise at home what you have been doing abroad, ie, your visit less than a year ago to Lithuania. Go to Quebec just as you went to Vilnius and state that you respect the right of Quebec to self-determination, invite the Quebec nation to postpone a divorce, to give English Canada a separation agreement and a decade of reprieve to adjust itself and its forms of government.
The logical corollary of this on a world plane is a plea to Stephen Lewis to speak out against the unwarranted abuse of the US mandate by Bush, to take steps to convene a UN general assembly, to work with other like-minded social democrats, such as Willy Brandt and the federal NDP caucus, to reform the UN charter on this very vital issue.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Are there questions? Thank you very much for your presentation.
That concludes the morning session for the committee. We will recess until 2 o'clock. I would ask members to be back here so we can start promptly at 2 o'clock because we do have a full afternoon.
The committee recessed at 1222.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1412.
The Chair: I call this afternoon's session to order. This is the continuation of the hearings in Toronto of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. We are sitting here in Toronto at the Legislative Building hearing from individuals and organizations.
I want to apologize for our starting late. We had a meeting of the subcommittee. For the members of the committee, we will have a report later on which will deal with some organizational matters, particularly when we are back in Toronto at the end of next week and with respect to 1 March as well. We have said before that we might reserve that as an additional day and the subcommittee is recommending that we use that, given the number of groups and individuals who are on the list to try to speak to us here in Toronto. But we can deal with the logistics of that later in the afternoon or in this evening's sitting.
MRS EDWARD RYAN
The Chair: I will resume with the list of speakers for this afternoon and call Ed Ryan to come forward.
Mrs Ryan: I am Mrs Ryan. Mr Ryan is working but I have his presentation.
The Chair: That is fine. Could I just say to you and to all of the others who are here who will be presenting that we have allotted a 15-minute time span and a 30-minute time span, 15 minutes for individuals, 30 minutes for organizations. We would really appreciate it if people keep their presentation to below that time because then that will allow us some time for questions. We are not going to be able to add more time to that because we actually do have a couple of individuals or groups who might be added to the list at the end of the afternoon session. It really would be useful for us to have a bit of time within those time frames to have some questions and discussion back and forth.
With that, Mrs Ryan, go ahead.
Mrs Ryan: Right at the beginning I wish to direct my remarks to you and my compatriots in Quebec; also, perhaps, francophones living outside Quebec will be interested. You Québécois have an obligation to be part of Canada for years and years. At present 25% of the Canadians who speak French live outside Quebec and rely on Quebec as an area near their homes here in North America where we communicate in French and also receive newspapers, novels and school books, as well as other correspondence referring to advanced education like medicine, commerce and accounting, etc.
This correspondence in French that we receive from Quebec is very important to those of us who speak French as a second or third language as it is well adapted to North American use.
The Canada for which I gave six years of my youth and for which my brother gave his life does not function as a nation, but acts like several groups of bickering and angry humans causing harm to each other in any way possible.
The cause of this dissatisfaction in Canada is the arrogant, cruel and destructive attitude of most elected representatives and senior government employees. This includes federal, provincial and municipal. Anyone who opposes any elected representative can expect harsh treatment, discrimination and destruction of property. Getting elected at all costs or having an erroneous or unethical endeavour succeed generally brings severe hardship on Canadians, especially those who speak French mainly as a second or third language or whose race is not what the local government representative recognized as serving this nation to his or her liking.
I was a victim of one of those arrogant acts by a senior employee of CN Rail, J. P. Schiller. A barge building I owned where seven people earned a livelihood was destroyed. I, the owner, or any other human did not receive any compensation, support or assistance from any level of government. The land this building occupied has been vacant for over 21 years. The loss to all levels of government in New Brunswick where I was born and lived over half my life and where my building was located was over $250,000. J. McMillan, a prominent Toronto resident and member of the NDP stated in this very room on 14 June 1990, "Mr Ryan was robbed, not by the government but by the man who is in charge of the CNR," a crown corporation.
Until claims that so many Canadians have against all governments of Canada and their crown corporations and their employees are settled, liberty and unity in Canada will not exist.
Final word on what the future of Canada, if Canada can be saved, should be: Five regions: Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Labrador, Ontario, prairie provinces, British Columbia and Yukon; Northwest Territories to be governed by the federal government for the present. All transportation should be controlled by the regions so that the hauling of BC salmon to the fish-rich area of eastern New Brunswick, which included the Miramichi River, noted for its salmon, and hauling canned vegetables from Ontario to the rich farm areas of Alberta or plywood from BC to the lumber camps of Quebec can be stopped. The reason for this unethical hauling is to create freight for government-owned railways.
A unilingual country will not operate very effectively in the 21st century, so I propose that all Canadian products be labelled, have handling and assembly instructions, contents, etc, in the following four languages of our neighbours and fellow Canadians: Spanish, English, French and Portuguese, and perhaps a language from Asia.
Asking that you intercede for me and many more Canadians to have our claims settled with the federal or any government in Canada, Edward Ryan.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Ryan.
L. J. REDMAN
The Chair: I call L. J. Redman.
Mr Redman: I have prepared for actually 10 minutes. I was called and told it would be 10. I prepared for eight, so I definitely will not run over. I have chosen to speak on Canadian unity as a part of Ontario in Confederation. The very existence of this select committee on Ontario in Confederation, and also the federal Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, tells us that our national unity is faced with a serious challenge, the most serious challenge since Confederation. In the time I have available I am going to touch on points that I consider to be of paramount importance to Canadian unity. These points apply both to the provincial and the federal domain.
I apologize if I move on the fed scene a little because I know this is a provincial committee, but they overlap so, as you well know; it is not possible to keep them apart. We must identify our problems and deal with them realistically.
First, we must all be Canadians. Our origins are important to each one of us, and rightly so, but first and above all we must be Canadians. Without virtually all Canadians having this as a firm conviction, our country cannot remain united in its present form. That Canadians lack a feeling of Canadian identity is not surprising. Our federal census form does not have a single question which can be answered by the word "Canadian." Regardless of the reason behind this, it can only serve to confuse and divide us and to increase our lack of Canadian identity.
1420
I was born and raised in Ontario. I am, generally speaking, pleased and happy to live here, but when I think of myself as an Ontarian, I do not feel that deep sense of pride that I feel, and have always felt, when I identify myself as a Canadian. I am a Canadian.
Multiculturalism, however well intended, has become a dividing force in our nation. People from other countries seem to be encouraged to bring their countries' problems with them, and these problems disrupt our national fabric. Multiculturalism is a fact of Canadian life, but we emphasize it too much and it divides us. Self-serving political parties and politicians have used multicultural programs to obtain votes and this increases our lack of identity. We must all stand and be counted as Canadians.
The next point I raise is fairness. Fair and equal treatment must be given to all Canadians in all parts of Canada. We in Ontario must ensure that our federal government follows this mandate. The unfair treatment of Winnipeg in the CF-18 overhaul program, awarded to a Montreal company with a bid $100-million-plus higher than the Winnipeg bid, is a flagrant example of federal waste and favouritism, and this will not be forgotten by Manitobans.
The movement of our space centre from Ottawa to Montreal, where almost a third of a billion dollars will be spent, some of it to duplicate facilities already in existence and in use by the space centre when it was in Ottawa, where it should have remained, will unfairly take contracts and jobs from our Ontario aerospace industry. There is the movement of our National Archives from Ottawa to Gatineau, and the recent quiet announcement last week by the office of Marcel Masse that a Canadian cultural centre will be built in Montreal at a cost of $45 million, and on and on it goes.
This is not fair treatment and provincial governments and citizens must speak out against it. Also, should Quebec separate, these facilities, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, will no longer be in Canada.
I now raise the point of openness in government. Meech Lake was conceived in a cloak of secrecy between the Prime Minister and premiers, and when new premiers became involved and when they found out what Meech really said, they rejected it. Had it been a more open forum, perhaps it might have succeeded. We will never know.
We must respect the democratic process. The will of the majority must be sought out and served, not the will of a select few and of vocal self-interest groups, but of that over 70% of our population so often cabled the silent majority. I do not suggest that we govern by referendum, but some issues could best be decided by this method. I refer specifically to Ontario's Bill 8.
In conclusion, the process, as it has been used or, more correctly, misused in the past has brought us to where we are today. I am encouraged by the fact that this committee has been created. If we do turn to an unselfish use of democracy for all Canadians and to fair and evenhanded fiscal policies for all, by both our federal and provincial governments, and if we as citizens recognize and take our places as proud and responsible Canadians in our great country, perhaps Canada, as we know it, will endure.
The Chair: Mr Redman, there are a couple of questions if you are prepared to take them.
Mr Offer: My question, Mr Redman, deals with your part of the submission on the issue of referendums, and specifically on an issue such as Bill 8. Do you find that the use of referendums might be at the very best an inappropriate vehicle when you are dealing with the protection of minority interests? Do you not feel that maybe it is the obligation and responsibility of elected officials to stand up and say what they feel and believe and to vote accordingly, and maybe to be held accountable in the next election as opposed to putting the issue of any minority interest by referendum?
Mr Redman: I go back to democracy as I see it, and democracy is really quite a simple process. Unfortunately we in Canada always seem to have to go to another country to get examples of it, but Abraham Lincoln summed it up as "for the people, of the people, by the people" -- I cannot remember the order. I do know that to get the will of, as I mentioned, the silent majority, I think is a good thing. That referendums be used as a regular tool of government, I do not agree with, no, but I do cite Bill 8 as one that I would like to have been able to make comment on.
I do not disagree with Bill 8. The fact that what it requires, and that is service to the French community, that it is there, is made available, is right considering the fact that we are a bilingual nation. I am not going to go into detail, but I have spoken to Mr Beer about this. However, there are examples of waste in that. You know of it as well as I do. I like common sense in things and I think possibly the use of a referendum, not to decide the fact that the issue will be passed or not passed but to get opinion on it, is worth while.
Mr Bisson: You said in the presentation that one of the things we need to do is identify ourselves as being Canadian. I agree with that premise. To a certain point, one of the things we have been hearing quite a bit from people who have been making presentations is the sense of pride they have when they travel abroad and are identified as Canadian. They travel to Europe or other places, and there seems to be this sense that Canada is not a bad place, is a fairly tolerant society that stands up for some pretty decent things.
Do you not think that by going in the direction I think you are implying with regard to deciding things by referendum, such as Bill 8, throwing things like Bill 8 out or not recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec or whatever, we would have turned our back on all of that? Do you not think that would be detrimental to Canada as a whole and also in the way it would be seen by other nations?
Mr Redman: Myself I feel that as to how we are perceived -- I will not press the issue of how we are seen by other nations -- I do not put as much importance on it perhaps as you do. I believe it is important that we are seen to be fair and that we are fair. My point is that we do not overdo the fostering of many separate identities. I think our country, as a single entity of Canadians, is number one. Then the other is that I do not originate here any more than -- I really do not know how many originated here, but even our aboriginal people came from Asia.
1430
Mr Bisson: I think what I am trying to get at is that we seem to have a hard time within Canada trying to identify what it is to be Canadian. That is one of the underlying things we are hearing here. But when you speak to Canadians who have travelled abroad, it seems that people outside of Canada do not have a hard time trying to identify what our identity is: Our identity is built on our tolerance. By purporting that we do not protect minority language rights or we do not protect minorities in any way, do you not think that takes away from what our identity is, that we are not the melting pot, that we are not trying to build a tolerant society? If we were to try to take back those things we gave to minorities or take back whatever institutions we have built for the greater good of Canadians, our social programs or whatever, do you not think it would be detrimental to our identity as seen by people outside of Canada and seen from people inside?
Mr Redman: I do not suggest that we take things back. I think we perhaps de-emphasize. It is like the profusion of holidays in New York City. They have reached the point where they have about as many holidays as they have working days, and you cannot take them back. If we have a situation where we try to emphasize our Canadianism, for lack of a better word, it is worth while. I do not have any trouble determining what I am. I am a Canadian. I do not have to live in Ontario, but that is what I am, a Canadian, and proud of it.
As I have mentioned to Mr Beer, I have travelled extensively. I have spent four or five years in total, travelling out of the country, and lived out of the country in Europe for a number of years. When I came back through the airport in Malton I always felt I was coming back to the best country I had ever been in. I have never felt otherwise. But I base that on the fact that I have a strong identity as a Canadian.
Mr Beer: I wanted to follow up on a question Steve Offer was asking you around referenda. Have you given some thought to the kinds of questions you think would be most apt to be used in referenda? Are we talking about any change to the Constitution? Is there some way of dividing that? Also, would you include in that this idea of the plebiscite, which is not binding in terms of specific action but rather serves to set out an opinion? I thought, in the way you were answering that, you were perhaps thinking at least some of these might be more of the plebiscite type as opposed to a binding "Thou shalt do it this way."
Mr Redman: This is a good point. You have certainly hit on it. I am not a political scientist. I was in industry, I am an aviator. You are quite right that "plebiscite" is probably more what I mean than "referendum." I drew this up yesterday and it should be huffed a little more perhaps.
PETER LOWRY
The Chair: I call Peter Lowry.
Mr Lowry: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak.
After reading your discussion paper, Changing for the Better, I appreciate that you have a very difficult task. I wish in one way your task was impossible. I wish there was a line of six million Ontario residents at the door to tell you of their hopes for our country.
Some people seem to suggest that surveys will tell you how people feel about issues, but I expect members of this committee to be among the most knowledgeable people in Canada of the dangers of making political decisions by opinion polls. It is only when people face others and say "This I believe" or go to a polling place and mark their ballot and say "This is what I do or do not want" that we can have a true sense of their thoughts, their wishes or maybe just understand their confusion.
I am here to admit my confusion. I do not have the overwhelming confidence of a young political science student. I certainly do not have the immense ego of a John Crispo. I cannot understand why, in your paper, you want to make up a shopping list of constitutional reforms when there is no place to go shopping. Should we not address the process of reform first? I am one Canadian who would prefer to address concerns about the Constitution in an open and democratic manner. I really do not want the boys in the back room shooting craps over my country. Why can we not bring together a representative assembly for the purpose of discussing our Constitution?
I hope you agree with me that Canadians are not collectively child-like, demanding, intolerant, racist, parochial or immature in their democracy. Contrary to the last speaker, travelling in many parts of the world, I have found that there is a widespread, very important opinion that says Canadians are quite mature, generous, tolerant and open people who are quite capable of managing their own affairs. I believe that, and I am sure you do too. What I do not understand, though, are constitutional discussions that make it look as though federal and provincial politicians want to carve up powers as though it is a contest to see who is more important. I do not think Canadians care who is more important.
I believe Canadians -- whether they want to say it in French, English, a native language or any of our heritage languages -- will say they do care that there is equality across our country. They care about equality of human rights and freedoms. I believe they care about equal access to education, to jobs, to justice, to health care and the right to address their gods in their own way, to protect their environment, to speak their language, preserve their culture and heritage and to find fulfilment as humans and Canadians. Add to that list, if you wish, but please delete nothing.
I do not understand those who want to discuss our Confederation in terms of economic values. If I have one objection to your paper, it discusses Canada in economic terms. Canada was never created as an economic unit. It has never functioned well as an economic unit. Canada paid a high price, for example, for British Columbia and Newfoundland, and we are still paying. I think they are worth it. They not only look good as book-ends to this country, but they contribute substantially to the cultural mélange that is Canada. Would you want a country without the Bill Vander Zalms or the John Crosbies?
Interjections.
Mr Lowry: Fair comment.
The Chair: You will get some interesting reactions to that, Mr Lowry.
Mr Lowry: I was trying to think of an NDP member from either end.
Mr Beer: We will provide some names.
Mr Lowry: I am not only confused but very concerned about suggestions in our country that so-called collective rights can override the rights of individuals. I have always believed that the measure of a democracy is the willingness and the ability of the majority to protect the rights of minorities and individuals. I worry whether we are doing that well in our country. I feel strongly that we must use both logic and passion to dissuade those who feel so personally inadequate that they speak against the use of French in Ontario. I am also very frightened by those who use racist terms such as "québécois pure laine" in Quebec. Is this Canada of the 1990s or Germany and France of the 1930s?
What worries me about Canada's future are those people not only in Quebec but even in our dear old grey Globe and Mail who talk about Quebec leaving Canada. I do not understand how that can be done. I do not see how we can allow it. Quebec is integral to Canada. Canada does not exist without it. The death of our country cannot be decided by voters in one province.
1440
I have heard some people say we should just let Quebec go. I must admit I do not understand that statement either. It could only be made by someone who cannot see the beauty of the Laurentians in the fall, enjoy the joie de vivre of winter carnival in Quebec, learn the history lessons of old Montreal or take a simple tranquil journey around the Gaspé. That is Canada. I am a Canadian and Quebec belongs to me, too.
One of the most important considerations is that even if eight out of 10 voters in la belle province voted to somehow separate our band into "theirs" and "ours," if just 20% said no, that 20% would represent one million Canadians, one million Quebeckers who wanted to remain part of our country. I, for one, would not stand aside and see the rights of one Canadian violated. Could you join me in protecting the rights of a million?
If I have any advice for this committee, and I do not envy you, it is to speak clearly and distinctly as Canadians. One of every three Canadians lives in this province. There is no need for us to be parochial. Do not demean us by negotiating federal versus provincial powers. Do not just be a peacemaker: take a stand you believe in. Do not insult us by speaking of "your people." Speak from your own heart. If you do what you sincerely believe is right, you might be. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lowry. There is some time for some questions.
Mr Beer: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Lowry. I want to ask you a question around a constituent assembly. We have had a presenter this morning, we have had a number of others, who have addressed that issue. One of the points is, how do we go about getting that opinion of the mythical population out there that is truly representative of all Canadians? Do we need to use some mechanism that is different from using our legislative bodies? What is your sense about that constituent assembly? How do you see that coming together and how is it necessarily any more representative than, let us say, the House of Commons or the Ontario Legislature?
Mr Lowry: If I may look at that in terms of the point I was making about dividing powers, my recommendation to the federal government on its committee that is sitting shortly on this issue is that an elected constituent assembly must be just for that purpose. It is not there to divide powers. It is there to do what is right for the people of Canada. As a federal member or provincial member or Toronto alderman -- that gets in the way of our thinking, because we tend to increase and want to build our own nest, build our own power. I think a constituent assembly gets around that problem. A constituent assembly gives us the opportunity to look at things in terms of the needs of people as opposed to the needs of politicians. I am sorry. I have nothing against politicians, nothing at all.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lowry.
Mr Lowry: Thank you.
KEN HESTER
The Chair: Ken Hester, come on up. Go ahead.
Mr Hester: On 30 June 1990 the Meech Lake constitutional deal failed. I was a strong supporter of that and I was very surprised at the enormous reaction throughout English Canada that was anti the fact that Quebec is a separate group of people. It seems to me that we must re-explore this Canada of ours in a much more detailed and definite way. On 30 January 1991, seven months from the failure of the Meech Lake accord, the Allaire report was released. This report was commissioned by the Quebec Liberal Party, the most federalist party sitting in the Quebec house of assembly. It has been endorsed by the Quebec Liberal leader, Premier Bourassa.
While it has much that is admirable -- I have not read the report, but I have read newspaper accounts of it -- it seems to envision a strong Quebec in a weak Canada. Federal powers under the Allaire report scheme would be unacceptably emasculated. In addition, the federal government has been served with an ultimatum: accept the contents of this report within 18 months or Quebec will call a referendum on separation. As 75% of Quebeckers now favour sovereignty at this juncture, this is really tantamount to telling us that Canada submits or Quebec goes.
On some things both the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada agree. We agree on democratic, not military, solutions to problems. We agree on maintaining economic and fiscal responsibility and on keeping an intact social net for those people who are aged and unable to work. However, it appears that on one thing we strongly disagree: everywhere across English Canada we are Canadians first and provincial second, but in Quebec we are québécois first and Canadians second. It is this that is the real problem, it seems to me. Perhaps it is an irrational problem, but it is this one that is the sticking point for us all. If it cannot be resolved, and I do not think it can, in that case Quebec will separate and English Canadians, if that happens, must make sure that their country, the new Canada, is protected.
Ontario's role is critical in all this. In Canada now, the province of Ontario is by far the dominant player. We have 37% of the population and proportionately more of the Canadian gross national product. In a Canada without Quebec, Ontario would have half the new Canadian population and contribute substantially more than half the gross national product. Can that overwhelming predominance of Ontario be resolved? I do not know, but it seems to me that for this reason it is really critical for Ontario to take the lead in birthing a new Canada.
1450
We cannot allow the discredited, Quebec-based federal government to negotiate for all Canadians in this dilemma. The province of Ontario must initiate constitutional discussions with the rest of English Canada. Those of us who love Canada must talk about a new entity, one without Quebec. Let us, English-speaking Canadians, devise the Canada we want and not have something foisted on us by Quebec. It is the time the ideals and dreams of 75% of Canadians were the dominating influence in Canadian constitutional talks, not the desires of a recalcitrant 25% of the people.
With separation we will face enormous disruptions such as we have never faced before. We will have to ensure transportation and communications links through Quebec to the Maritimes. We must recognize that separation will lead to the exodus of many English-speaking people from Quebec and the emigration of francophones from the rest of Canada into Quebec. There will be a tremendous amount of bitter feeling engendered all the way across this country, bitter from the point of view of the Quebeckers, bitter from the point of view of English Canada, saying that these people got out.
But just as in the US Civil War, separation might very well strengthen the new Canada. Piet Hein, the Danish poet, puts it in a nutshell:
Here is a fact that should help you to fight a bit longer.
Things that do not actually kill you outright make you stronger.
In Quebec the flowering of this nationalistic feeling has led to a flowering of the arts, and the same thing could well happen in a new Canada. For too long we have assumed that Quebec was what made us different from Americans. Now we must recognize that Canadians have different social values, different political values and a more humane outlook than Americans. We must stimulate and enhance these aspects that make us different, that make us Canadian. We must take to heart the words of a great American president, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
In a new Canada we could be united because we came through a dramatic confrontation and survived. Far from being a disaster, the separation of Quebec should be viewed as a possible release for English Canada, just as it is viewed as a release in Quebec. It could well lead to a national euphoria. Suddenly, we will understand that this is our country, a unique country, united as never before. We in Ontario should view Quebec's probable separation as a special opportunity, an opportunity for Ontario to lead in forming a new Canada.
Mr Offer: Mr Hester, is the scenario which you have painted, assuming the separation of Quebec, since you have gone on and talked about a potential euphoria and things of this nature, could you share with us what you see in the scenario you have painted as the status of FrancoOntarians, the status of the French language in this province of Ontario and in fact in all of the provinces that are in this new Canada you have created?
Mr Hester: I would see that new Canada as being unilingual but with a tremendous amount of acceptance of French and other languages as well. In Quebec we have certainly restricted advertising and so on in any language other than French. I would not see that at all. New Brunswick of course is a bilingual province, and you know there are many people in Ontario who are francophones. I would see English Canada being unilingual. But within that, let's say Sault Ste Marie wants to talk about having francophone schools. That would be fine. It would be fine if they had Spanish schools as well. We would be very much more flexible as far as language is concerned, but we would not be protecting the francophones the way it is done now.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Sir, do you see Ontario taking the leadership role in this English Canada that you speak about?
Mr Hester: Absolutely. We have to. Ontario has to. It is going to be 50%. Let's say that Quebec separates: 50% of Canada is Ontario as far as population is concerned, more than 50% as far as the economics are concerned. Somehow or other, if we are going to have a Canada, we have to be able to set up some sort of regional representation, an elected Senate. That is absolutely critical.
The Allaire report suggests we abolish the Senate. The Senate seems to me to be the one thing that might keep this Canada together. If we can have representation from one end of the country to the other, where people in the west feel that they are really contributing and people in the Maritimes feel that they are really contributing to the government of Canada, then I think perhaps we will be able to revive this Canadian concept.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Hester.
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DE FRANCOPHONES D'AFRIQUE
The Chair: Jean Calvin Gweth-Nanalh, come on up. Go ahead, sir.
M. Gweth-Nanalh: Je vais lire mon exposé en français.
M. le Président: Ça va.
M. Gweth-Nanalh : Nous ne pouvons pas réfléchir sur l'avenir du Canada sans parler de l'expérience du passé et du présent. Le traité de Paris de 1763 qui a fait de la Nouvelle-France une colonie britannique à la suite de la défaite des royales françaises sur les plaines d'Abraham n'a jamais été accepté par les Canadiens français.
Le rejet de la colonisation culturelle anglaise a amené le gouvernement de Londres à reconnaître aux colonisés français en 1774 le droit d'utiliser leur langue, de pratiquer leur religion, la religion catholique et le droit français. Implicitement, ils ont reconnu le droit à la différence et consacré la société distincte et l'unité dans la diversité.
L'histoire du Canada depuis l'occupation de la Nouvelle-France par les Britanniques et les Anglo-Américains n'a jamais cessé de connaître de soubresauts. À cet égard, les événements des années 70 ont rappelé étrangement ceux de 1867 sous la direction de Papineau. L'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique signé par la reine Victoria n'a été que la conséquence d'un compromis entre francophones et anglophones.
En 1867, le Canada était mal parti. La mise en place de la structure d'un nouvel État nord-américain avait oublié les premiers habitants du pays, à savoir les Amérindiens ainsi que les populations noires venues soit des États-Unis, soit des Antilles d'où ils fuyaient l'esclavage à moins d'avoir été amenées directement par les Français qui voulaient s'établir ici. À titre de mémoire, en 1608 l'interprète de Champlain, lors de son arrivée en Nouvelle-France était d'origine malgache. La présence africaine est manifeste, comme en témoignent les Noirs de la Nouvelle-Écosse et du village de Chatham en Ontario. L'histoire nous apprend que les marrons, grands combattants de la liberté, étaient des Noirs venus d'Afrique qui n'acceptaient de voir bafouer leur dignité.
1500
L'appropriation du Canada par deux peuples d'origine européenne s'est toujours opposée à la réalisation de l'unité nationale et a fait du Canada un colosse aux pieds d'argile. L'ouverture des frontières à l'immigration n'a rien arrangé, puisque le recensement national de 1986 nous apprend qu'il y a neuf millions de Canadiens qui ne sont ni d'origine britannique ni d'origine française. Ceci constitue un tournant nouveau dans l'histoire du Canada, puisque l'article 2 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés permet à ses nouveaux venus de s'installer n'importe où au pays et en fait implicitement des pionniers au même titre que les premiers venus.
La perception du Canada par les nouveaux Canadiens que nous sommes est tout à fait différente de celle des Canadiens français et des Canadiens anglais. Nous avons choisi en toute connaissance de cause de nous établir au Canada. Nous en avons fait notre patrie. Nous voulons sa prospérité et nous entendons sauvegarder son unité par tous les moyens à notre disposition, même -- souhaitons que cela n'arrive pas -- au prix de notre sang.
Nous, Canadiens francophones venus d'Afrique, avons une tradition qui est inscrite dans la charte de l'Organisation de l'unité africaine, l'OUA. Cet article stipule que nos pays doivent oeuvrer pour le renforcement dans l'état du sens de l'unité du continent et condamne vigoureusement toute tentative de sécession d'une région d'un État africain, que ce soit un grand ou un petit pays. De même, nous avons combattu la tentative de sécession du Biafra au Nigeria, celle de I'Érythrée en Éthiopie et la politique de développement séparé par le biais des Bantoustans en Afrique du Sud. De même, nous sommes décidés à défendre l'intégrité territoriale du Canada contre tous ceux qui veulent démanteler notre pays. Il est temps que les Canadiens prennent leurs responsabilités pour dire non aux indépendantistes de tous bords.
À l'heure où on parle de mondialisation de l'économie et de la culture par les médias interposés, il est absurde d'entendre parler de l'indépendance d'une province canadienne. Même si le Québec occupait la position géographique de Terre-Neuve, son indépendance serait in-acceptable. À plus forte raison, un Québec géopolitiquement mal placé et dont la sécession couperait le Canada en deux, comment pourrions-nous admettre un tel principe qui vise à détruire notre pays ?
Bien sûr que le Canada n'est pas un paradis ; nous les Noirs en savons quelque chose. Et il en est de même pour les Amérindiens et pour l'ensemble des minorités dites visibles mais qui sont loin de l'être quand il s'agit des avantages. Bien sûr que les Canadiens français sont différents des Canadiens anglophones, mais moi aussi je suis différent des deux, en particulier des Canadiens français avec lesquels je partage pourtant la même langue.
Mais j'aimerais voir exprimer, par l'intermédiaire de nos médias, par exemple Radio-Canada et en français surtout, ma culture. Après tout, Léopold Sédar Senghor est membre de l'Académie française. Il prouve que nous ne sommes pas les derniers quand il s'agit de parler ou d'écrire le français.
Nous sommes fiers d'être francophones et de le clamer devant les anglophones. Nous sommes fiers d'être Canadiens et de parler les deux langues officielles de notre pays. Nous sommes originaires de cette partie du monde, l'Afrique, où la plupart des pays utilisent le français -- 26 sur 50 -- l'anglais, l'arabe, le portugais, le swahili et une multitude de langues locales. Pour nous qui venons d'Afrique, nous avons du mal à comprendre que les Canadiens, qui n'ont que deux langues officielles, passent leur temps à se quereller. Nous pensons que parler plusieurs langues est une richesse et nous avons besoin du maximum de langues pour compétitionner dans l'économie mondiale.
Le rôle des différents paliers du gouvernement et de partis politiques est de montrer aux Canadiens l'importance économique de la mosaïque culturelle canadienne, de leur apprendre à se connaître, de s'accepter tels qu'ils sont pour le plus grand bien du pays et l'avenir commun de nos enfants. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la constitution de 1867 et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés de 1982 doivent être adaptées aux réalités nouvelles du pays et du monde. Il est inadmissible qu'en 1991 il n'y ait pas de libre-échange entre les provinces canadiennes alors que nous avons signé un traité de libre-échange avec les États-Unis et que nous nous apprêtons à en signer un autre le Mexique.
Il est absurde que le Canada ne contrôle pas son système d'éducation et que les diplômés d'une province aient des difficultés à faire accepter leur diplôme dans les provinces du pays. Il est absurde que les diplômés formés ailleurs aux frais des autres pays ne puissent pas trouver d'emplois ici quand ils s'installent au Canada. Il est regrettable que les Canadiens n'aient pas le sens d'appartenance à leur pays, au point où on se demande qui est Canadien. Les gens installés dans notre pays depuis plusieurs générations se font encore appeler Italiens, Juifs, Portugais, Grecs, Africains et j'en passe. La seule exception est au moment de payer les impôts, car Revenu Canada ne fait pas de discrimination en matière de paiements d'impôts.
L'avenir du Canada ne dépend pas uniquement des Canadiens. La géopolitique a fait de notre pays un tampon entre les deux superpuissances à travers l'océan Arctique. L'Union soviétique et les États-Unis ont chacun une défense qui depuis 1940 vise la destruction l'un de l'autre. Chacun de ces pays a mis au point des armes qui peuvent atteindre l'autre via le Canada. De plus, le Nord canadien est devenu une zone économique intéressante pour les communications aériennes. Mieux, le Groenland, qui appartient à la Norvège, pays européen, abrite les mêmes populations que le Nord canadien. La zone polaire septentrionale joue un rôle de plus en plus important dans les prévisions météorologiques mondiales et la protection de l'environnement. C'est aussi une grande nappe d'eau pour l'humanité où les savants étudient les problèmes relatifs à la pêche.
La conjoncture de tous ces centres d'intérêts et la sécurité du territoire national ont des répercussions sur les relations internationales du Canada et sur la politique interne vis-à-vis des peuples, les populations nordiques. Mais le fédéral peut-il accorder des avantages aux Inuit qui leur assurent le contrôle du Nord canadien sans faire autant pour les autres groupes amérindiens du pays? L'Est canadien, après avoir bénéficié des relations économiques privilégiées avec l'Europe, éprouve aujourd'hui des difficultés car l'Europe préfère se procurer des matières premières dans des régions du monde où elles content moins cher. Le fait que l'Europe occidental ait le même niveau de développement que l'Amérique du Nord et que ses produits finis soient similaires aux produits nord-américains ne facilite pas les échanges entre ces deux parties du monde, d'où le dépérissement de la voie maritime du Saint-Laurent.
1510
En d'autres termes, il est faux de prétendre que c'est le gouvernement fédéral qui ne favorise pas le développement économique des provinces Maritimes et du Québec par des investissements. La vérité est que les grands axes de l'économie mondiale se trouvent désormais orientés vers les nouveaux pays industrialisés de l'Asie du Sud-Est, soit le Japon, la Corée du Sud, l'île de Singapour, le Hong-Kong et le Taiwan qui ont besoin de matières premières pour leurs industries en pleine croissance et non de produits finis. La conséquence de cette situation est l'épanouissement de l'économie de l'ouest du continent américain en général et du Canada en particulier. À titre d'exemple, Thunder Bay en Ontario, le plus grand port céréalier du monde, a perdu son importance au profit de Vancouver et le gouvernement canadien a dû doubler sa ligne de chemin de fer pour répondre aux besoins du port de Vancouver.
L'avenir économique du Canada se trouve désormais dans l'Ouest, qui permet des échanges avec les pays du Sud-Est asiatique via l'océan Pacifique. Ce phénomène nouveau pose un problème politique. N'aurions-nous pas à signer un traité de libre-échange avec les pays du Pacifique, sachant que le libre-échange avec notre puissant voisin du sud hypothèque notre avenir en tant que nation indépendante ?
L'Ontario doit demeurer le poumon économique du Canada, de la région des Grands Lacs. L'Ontario doit développer ses relations économiques avec le Nord, l'Est, l'Ouest, donner les chances égales à tous les Ontariens en matière d'éducation, formation professionnelle et en matière d'emploi s'il veut rester concurrentiel à l'échelle mondiale. Pour ce faire, il doit faire tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour sauvegarder l'unité canadienne car son propre avenir en dépend. Il serait naïf de croire que la prospérité de l'Ontario se maintiendrait si le pays éclatait. L'exemple du Bangladesh, détaché du Pakistan, a été un coup dur pour ce dernier pays.
On voit mal un Canada coupé en deux par un Québec indépendant survivre en tant qu'État unique tout comme on voit mal un Québec indépendant le demeurer longtemps sans se faire avaler par les États-Unis. S'il est vrai que notre pays est une démocratie et que selon la définition qu'en donne Montesquieu dans l'Esprit des lois -- la démocratie, c'est le gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple -- il est urgent que le gouvernement fédéral organise un référendum sur l'avenir constitutionnel du pays afin de lui permettre de rédiger une nouvelle constitution plus conforme aux réalités de notre temps et capable d'éliminer toutes velléités de sécession. Merci.
M. Beer : Vous parlez du point de vue de l'indépendance ou de la séparation du Québec du reste du pays, qu'on ne peut pas l'accepter. Mais qu'est-ce que vous dites si 80%, 90% des Québécois optent clairement pour un pays indépendant ? A quelle action le Canada peut-il vraiment passer ou devrait-il passer, ou ne faut-il pas accepter une si claire déclaration du point de vue des Québécois ?
M. Gweth-Nanalh : Je n'ai pas de difficulté à accepter la position québécoise, mais il faut se rappeler que dès le départ, en 1867, même quand vivait le premier ministre, le défunt John Macdonald, il y a avait ce même problème parce qu'il fallait choisir entre devenir une république, une royauté, une fédération ou une confédération. Je pense que jusqu'à sa mort, et l'histoire nous en témoigne, il n'a pas pu arriver à décider vraiment ce qu'il fallait. Les ancêtres de ce pays ont adopté cette position d'aller du côté britannique de peur d'être engloutis pas les Américains. Donc, nous avons formé un pays par la peur. Aujourd'hui nous sommes face à cette même redéfinition de ce pays que nous aimons tant. Je pense que les Québécois aussi aiment ce pays.
Maintenant, s'il faut repartager les pouvoirs, redéfinir certains termes : comme je le disais tantôt, nous parlons de multiculturalisme ; 9 millions de 27 millions en 1986, selon le recensement, sont d'origines autres que britannique et française. Ça pose un problème. Est-ce qu'on va faire un pays pour ces multiculturels ? Si tout à coup ils décidaient qu'ils voulaient former leur pays, est-ce qu'on leur permettrait de former leur pays et laisser les autres d'origine française et britannique à côté ? C'est ça le dilemme.
Donc, il faut qu'on puisse s'asseoir de bonne foi, je pense, anglophones, francophones et nous les multiculturels, comme on nous appelle. On nous appelle les minorités visibles. Je n'aime pas tellement le mot, mais je pense que chaque fois que je passe dans la rue je suis assez visible pour ne pas me faire appeler minorité visible.
Mais l'autre position, quand je parle de démocratie : il faut respecter le désir du Québec mais dans le contexte canadien, parce qu'il ne faut pas oublier que depuis la Confédération -- et c'est là, et j'en ai parlé dès le départ -- le Québec avait été reconnu dès le départ comme société distincte quand la reine Victoria a signé le document. Donc, le Québec avait droit à sa diversité.
Donc, aujourd'hui, si c'est le pouvoir qu'on veut vraiment, partager le pouvoir, peut-être que le gouvernement fédéral a plus de pouvoir ou les gouvernements provinciaux ont plus de pouvoir, bien, qu'on se le dise ouvertement mais qu'on ne vienne pas nous dire : «Pourquoi on ne laisserait pas la chance à Terre-Neuve?»
Il y a Terre-Neuve qui depuis longtemps se plaint et dit qu'elle n'a pas tellement eu sa part du gâteau. S'ils décidaient de partir du Canada, qu'est-ce qu'on dirait ? On aurait le même problème. Tout à coup on aurait notre frontière modifiée et ainsi de suite, la Nouvelle-Écosse -- Donc, le problème est un problème de fond. On a survécu de 1867 jusqu'aujourd'hui. Il faudrait maintenant faire une nouvelle constitution. Et le cas de Sault-Sainte-Marie, soudainement -- c'était l'été dernier -- nous l'a montré, et les Amérindiens. Alors, si on répond aux problèmes du Québec, les autres qui vont se plaindre, est-ce qu'on va leur dire : «Allez-y aussi»? Autant dire qu'on n'a plus de pays.
1520
BRIAN GRAFF
The Chair: I call Brian Graff. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Graff: Hello. My name is Brian Graff. I am here as a private citizen, a person who very much loves his country. I identify myself very strongly as being a Canadian and I always hope that I will be able to say that.
I am not here representing any group. I am just representing myself. I am not an expert in any field, economics or political science or law, that would give me an expert opinion on the issues of reforming Canada, of the Constitution, of anything. But I am a person who has been involved in politics off and on over the years and I feel I have a responsibility to in some way contribute to the process, if I can.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to be here. I only wish that we had had something like this five years ago, before Meech Lake was agreed upon in secret by 11 first ministers. If we had had a chance to talk about Quebec's demands first, maybe we could have come up with something that would have been more acceptable to both sides.
The only concern I have had about this series of committee hearings is the degree to which some Ontarians who have come before this have used this as a chance to talk about things that are totally unrelated to the current constitutional crisis. They are asking for more money or other things, and I hope this sort of process could be extended in future to issues such as native rights or multiculturalism or whatever, but I am going to try to stick on topic as much as possible. My talk is broken into two parts. The first part is largely just a series of ideas or positions I have about ways which we should change our government institutions and the way we elect our government and just the Constitution as a whole. The second part, which I think is going to be more off the top of my head, is just sort of how I feel we should respond to Quebec and what the future may very well bring in resolving the current crisis. At the very end I do have a proposal which I hope might have some effect in keeping Quebec within Canada. It is not something that specifically relates to the Ontario government, but it does relate to Canadians as a whole.
The Chair: Mr Graff, before you get into the brief, you have given us a very detailed brief. I can see from just glancing at it --
Mr Graff: I am not going to read all of it.
The Chair: Good. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the time constraint we are under.
Mr Graff: Yes. The only parts I am going to be reading from are the very first section and the very last section. The middle, like I said, is the part that is going to be off the top of my head, because I realize it is too long.
If the Meech Lake accord had passed, it is likely that the constitutional process would have continued, as it had previously, to be but a series of patch jobs without ever there being any real chance to examine comprehensively the greater issues of our Constitution and of the way we organize ourselves. What is needed, I believe, is an overall reform that questions everything about our government system, because I do not think Canadians really understand a lot of the aspects.
Many of the aspects of our government system are anachronisms. For example, we have the Privy Council. I do not think anybody has any idea what the purpose of the Privy Council is supposed to be or what it does or why we still have it. Whatever role it does play, maybe there are ways of doing that which are more relevant and more democratic to most Canadians.
One thing is, in doing such a thing, we should start from the top down, and perhaps the first thing for me is that it is time we should finally have a made-in-Canada head of state. For many French Canadians, the British-based monarchy is not an endearing institution. As well, it is not a symbol of great relevance to the increasing number of Canadians of non-British heritage, including the aboriginal peoples. The Queen has no real power as such, most of it having been transferred to the Governor General. This was made abundantly clear with the GST bill, in which she had no choice but to sign it into law despite the controversy over the way in which it was passed.
In the past, I tended to support the monarchy, as I believed it to be a symbol which helped to distinguish ourselves from the US as a nation which gained independence peacefully. But now I feel that other things are more important, namely that we must create national institutions and symbols that are equally valid and relevant to all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin or their religion. You should remember that the Queen is of course a religious symbol as the head of the Anglican church.
Twenty-five years ago we did this sort of thing with the flag. We got a brand-new flag. No one individual group, British, French or anybody, could claim that it had a special relationship to it, that it was its symbol more than it was anybody else's, with the possible exception of course that the maple leaf does not grow in all parts of the country.
Anyway, I hope that by such reforms as creating a new head of state that everybody equally can identify with, it will have an effect of unifying the country.
Recent events have shown us that while the American system has too many checks and balances and power is too decentralized within each level of government, such as the budget process in the United States where they could not agree on anything, our Canadian system is the exact opposite. There are not enough checks and balances in our parliamentary system as it has evolved to the current time. Power within each level of government is centralized in the head of government, particularly when that is a majority government. I believe the greater power should be given to bodies which are independent of interference from the government so as to prevent abuse of power by the government and otherwise make government more responsive to public needs. This is a role of the Senate, the head of state and so on.
Unfortunately, the current institution of Governor General is not adequate to this task, as it is currently an appointed head of state, or it would be an appointed head of state if you made that the head of state, and it is quite likely that whoever was appointed Governor General the government would of course be completely sympathetic with government policy. I also believe you cannot give an appointed person or body any real authority in a democracy. So I think that, importantly, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a need to provide more checks and balances on the exercise of power by the Prime Minister, because increasingly power is centralized in his office.
I believe we should replace both monarchy and governors general with an elected president, but I would not want anything like the American President, which so totally dominates things. I would, though, require that any aspirants to the position of president previously have held elected office so that they be familiar with parliamentary procedures and also that they be competent in both official languages, again so that they can communicate with all Canadians.
One of the key flaws of our electoral system is that people elected by our current process do not necessarily represent a majority of the voters. Our present system, where a candidate with the largest number of votes is the winner, is not necessarily democratic when there are more than two candidates or parties in the running. Ours is a simple-majority system in which the leader in votes wins. What this means is that a candidate with less than an absolute majority of 50% of the votes plus one will be elected.
1530
This system is seriously flawed and the results are not often a true representation of public sentiment. For example, in the recent Ontario election, the winning party formed a majority government with less than 38% of the vote. This problem is magnified if there are other considerations in voting and we only have the one vote for everything. For example, if a party advocates a policy that is opposed by the majority, it may still win even though more voters voted for parties that were taking the majority position.
This is what happened with free trade in the last federal election. The majority of the public were opposed to free trade but because the vote was split between the NDP and the Liberals, the Conservatives were able to form the government and impose free trade, even though the majority of Canadians did not support this. This makes it highly debatable in our elections whether the winning party really has a mandate from the voters.
One solution often suggested to reform our electoral system is to move to some system of proportional representation. This is not desirable, in my view, as it might lead to a perpetual series of minority governments in which small parties representing extreme ideologies or special interests have a disproportionately large influence on public policy by holding the balance of power in the elected assembly. This is the case in Israel where you have very small, extreme religious parties who tend to influence the public policy.
Another problem with this system is that in portioning out seats to those parties that are underrepresented, you create two classes of representatives. You either create elected members who represent no geographic constituency or else you have constituencies that are doubly represented in the assembly. Either one of these situations is undesirable and is not truly democratic.
The system I advocate is one where a candidate has to get an absolute majority of votes, and this would be done by allowing voters to mark a second or third choice on a ballot. This could also be done by having a runoff election as in France, but I believe a better method would be to do away with marking a second or third choice on a ballot. Those ballots which mark a candidate to come in at the very bottom, the first choice would then be put aside and the second or third choice would then be used until one candidate had a majority of the votes that were still valid.
This system eliminates the cost, voter apathy and confusion of having two election days, and has an additional advantage in eliminating the need for strategic voting in an election as you can vote first for the party that you really support, rather than voting primarily to keep another party from getting into power. While this system might take longer to tabulate if done by hand, this could be eliminated through using electronic methods to count the ballots.
Currently, the people in the west disapprove of the way in which election results from the east have been tabulated before voting has finished in the west, which has sometimes left them feeling that their votes are irrelevant as the party that will form the government is already certain. No means of eliminating this problem by varying voting hours in each time zone should be utilized as this would alter the election outcome by affecting the opportunity of voters in the far east or far west to vote during otherwise reasonable hours, such as early morning or early evening after work. The approach that should be used to prevent this problem might be to actually delay the vote count until the next day or until all the polls have closed across the country.
I would also propose that election dates should not be set by the government but should be held on prearranged days similar to the American system. The exception to this rule would be if a government was defeated on a non-confidence motion and the head of state did not believe it was possible for any party to gain the confidence of Parliament. These reforms that I am proposing should be implemented at both the federal and provincial levels.
It may be ironic that while I am a strong Canadian nationalist, many of my suggestions would make the structure and responsibilities of Canadian governments more like that of the US. The idea that we have to be more like the US in our political institutions if we plan to remain independent is something that has long been a paradox in Ontario politics that long pre-dates Confederation. It has also been the reality, for we have long since abandoned many of the ideals held by the Loyalists and the Family Compact that equated democracy and elected assemblies with mob rule and that favoured government by a small elite and saw the public as an ignorant rabble. We should accept that we are in a unique position to try to combine the best elements of both the American and the British traditions.
I believe that the triple E Senate, as proposed by the west, is a blatantly undemocratic proposal that is an attempt to grab power and runs counter to true democracy. The areas that actually lose the most power are not southern Ontario and Toronto, but probably more like northern Ontario, areas which are currently not very influential. For example, PEI has more representation in the Senate than Vancouver Island, which is actually larger and has a larger population and just as many distinct issues.
Western alienation is a real and serious problem that must be addressed, but so far little has been said by the east to defend itself or to counteract it, possibly as we have believed we would only be resented more by seeming to be so smug and contented with the status quo. For example, there is the Ottawa Valley line of the 1960s when we were forced in Ontario to buy western petroleum instead of importing cheaper oil from overseas. Similarly, Ontarians have not complained about things like the wheat board where we pay higher prices for grain than export or world prices in order to support western farmers, while at the same time we are subsidizing them with our tax dollars through programs such as drought relief.
The Chair: Mr Graff, you are nearing the end of your time, just so that you know that.
Mr Graff: Okay. I will just quickly go through some of my points.
The point I am making here is, forget the triple E Senate. The real problem with western alienation is strict party discipline which prevents the views of the west from being heard.
Actually, I am going to just skip to the end right now because I have a proposal I would like to make.
If we want to continue to live in a strong and united Canada, then perhaps the first and most important thing we can do is to let the people of Quebec know that they are wanted very much in Canada and that they are an important part of Canada, that Canada would not really be Canada without them and that we want Quebec to stay in Canada. We do not reject Quebec at all. I like Quebec very much myself. I have been there several times and I have always enjoyed myself.
I was opposed to the Meech Lake accord, both for the process and for its content. I was dismayed by the means that were used to get it passed and the whole thing. I just hope the result of this whole thing is that Canada can remain a country and that we do not end up being forced to be so centralized or so fragmented that we become part of the United States. This is something I was very much afraid of at the time Meech Lake died.
I do not believe Canadians can rely on Robert Bourassa to defend federalism to the people of Quebec, given that he is more concerned with maintaining power by preventing a split in his party. He tries to walk the fine line between the federalist and nationalist provincial Liberal factions, and his style is to try to stay in front of the parade rather than to lead it or change its course. His support for federalism seems to be based more on economics than anything else.
Nor can we rely on Brian Mulroney to turn the tide on Quebec separatism or to fight for the type of strong Canadian government that is necessary for Canada to survive in the face of the United States and prosper in the long run, for Mr Mulroney is in fact the one who is responsible for the current situation by trying to appease Quebec nationalists and accept them into his cabinet. Nor can we rely on the Quebec media to present the case for federalism as many of them are already openly in support of sovereignty.
I believe we have to find ways of going around them and appeal directly to the people of Quebec if we wish to affect public opinion and increase support for federalism in Quebec. The way to keep Canada strong and united is not to appease Quebec sovereigntists but to debate them and refute their arguments and assertions and offer alternatives of Canadian nationalism in which their deeper aspirations can be met just as effectively or even better.
It has to be an idea of Canada to which they have an emotional attachment, not just a temporarily pragmatic one merely based on economic arguments which may very well change. I am dismayed that our Premier has not really said anything other than pounded on the economic advantages of Confederation so far. Quebec has to recognize that a strong and unified Canada is the best way in the long run for the long-term benefit, vitality and survival of French culture and heritage and language in Quebec and in North America as a whole.
To do this, I propose that we learn from the free trade debate in which businesses, unions, private organizations and prominent as well as more average individual Canadians pooled their resources and formed broad coalitions to influence the outcome of the election. Businesses provided the financial support into whichever side best represented their interests for the future, and I would hope they would now be able to provide funds to keep Canada together, because it surely must be in their best interests to avoid the uncertainties and other problems that would likely occur in an acrimonious breakup of the country. This Canada Coalition, as I will call it for the lack of a more appropriate name, might also receive financial and other support from the nine provincial governments outside Quebec and could actually be the means by which they could provide a common front in contributing to taking the debate into Quebec itself and not relying on the federal government.
1540
This Canada coalition would act to organize and pay for public debates between federalists and sovereigntists, to distribute federalist materials to Quebec households, to pay for prominent federalists to travel into Quebec for interviews with the news media, to run radio and television and print advertisements advocating federalism and describing its benefits, and otherwise act to advocate federalism and to shift public support in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada behind national unity.
In fact, a group was recently formed in Quebec called Movement 1991 for the purpose of advocating a quicker referendum on Quebec independence. If the separatists are forming these sorts of advocacy groups, we have no choice but to do the same thing if we want to keep Quebec in Canada and if we want to do so on terms that do not weaken our ability and the ability of the federal government to work in the best interests of all Canadians in defending Canadian interests from American interests and otherwise keeping us united.
In 1980 the federalist "no" side of the referendum was headed up by the leader of the provincial opposition, then the Quebec Liberal Party. But if they are the ones calling for the referendum in two years, who will be left to run the federalist side in Quebec? If we rely on the hope that the first ministers might negotiate a reasonable solution before then, we are fooling ourselves. In addition, the stronger the support is for sovereignty in Quebec, the less room there is for them to negotiate a resolution, so we must go to the heart of the matter ourselves.
Time is short and getting shorter. I do not believe we will have the time to create some form of elected constitutional convention, separate from our elected governments, as some have suggested, because it would have to be organized by government itself and I do not believe any of the first ministers would be willing to forfeit authority over constitutional change. Some sort of change is inevitable and we are all certain of this. We must start taking measures now to save Canada as we know it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Graff. We will have to end there, there being no time left to deal with any questions.
DONALD CLAPPISON
The Chair: I call Donald Clappison.
Mr Clappison: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, it is with a great deal of remembrance, sadness and frustration I realized that this is the same furniture that was here at the time I appeared at the Meech Lake hearings. At the time, my frustration was the regimentation and the manipulation of the Meech Lake process.
My brief will be very short today. I must admit that the nature and the tone of my presentation today will not exactly reveal a Canadian who has given up, but will bear the frustration and the negative aspect of my feelings and the feelings of a great many Canadians. I am making it very brief today, since we are under time restraints, so I will proceed.
Before you categorize the entire presentation as totally negative, it is how many people of English Canada feel, and I do not believe there is time for acrimony between the founding nations. I have been to Quebec, I loved the holiday, I loved the people, but I feel that what we see today is a totally distorted view. We see power and the power side of the issue.
In the minds of many Canadians, the Meech Lake conference provided an opportunity to heal and restore the tenuous relationship between our two founding nations. The procedure demanded open and sincere leadership, a reasonable time frame and the genuine inclusion of public participation. Ignoring these obvious prerequisites, the federal government chose a process to be long remembered for its delay, secrecy, manipulation, acrimony and unwarranted vilification of participants possessing legitimate concerns.
The mishandling of Meech Lake decimated the very public acceptance it was intended to achieve. The nation simply refused to be programmed by political street smarts and a roll of the dice. Consequently, we now find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma, without a sense of leadership, any realistic blueprint or identifiable purity of purpose from those we have chosen to represent us.
The Meech Lake process left Canadians generally mistrustful of pious declarations and shallow prescriptions for unity. The damaging partisan claim that English Canada had rejected Quebec through the Meech Lake failure has only served to deepen wounds and rekindle hostilities we felt we had overcome. Unfortunately for Canada, there are those still prepared to mix partisan objectives with the wellbeing of our nation, to the peril of future generations on both sides of the debate.
I do not have to remind this committee of the hurriedly organized federal Citizens' Forum set in motion barely in advance of Quebec hearings on sovereignty. The timing alone of this unstructured, costly exercise has generated further cynicism at a time when we are already besieged by a multitude of overwhelming domestic difficulties threatening our survival.
As a people, we daily experience these difficulties, be they the incompetent dismantling of economic investments of yesteryear, the abandonment of jobs and factories to the selfish whim of market forces or the deliberately orchestrated erosion of the very special social sensitivities and gentleness that made us different as a country.
Our cities remain threatened by the foolish persistence of the Young Offenders Act. Violence is allowed to increase while policemen become easy targets for political criticism. New aspects of abortion, new genetic breakthroughs, the increasing number of the elderly and the high cost of health care threaten our future values of human life. To these difficulties, add high interest rates, the value of the dollar, war, recession and violence. As a nation we have a very full plate. Under these circumstances, the current constitutional crisis seems hardly appropriate, but we are in it and it must be resolved.
After urging and threatening English Canadians to make concessions in Meech Lake, the federal government has now shifted its philosophical gears, stating its determination to defend Canada from unreasonable demands of our fellow province.
I submit that if Canada is to be saved, it must be first saved from the hands of the self-serving aspect of our political life and be managed by those who can act independently of their own power base. Our unity will not be restored through vague generalities at midday business luncheons or the opening of discussion kits in a church basement. It is time for genuine leadership, and real leaders, like real men, admit their mistakes, building on restored honesty, not upon the redirection of blame to others.
In 1940 my family's home was situated above the railway lines leading from the north Toronto station to the boats in Halifax and passage to the battlefields of Europe. I can still visualize the trainloads of our finest troops as they enthusiastically waved to everyone in sight. Memorial plaques in countless Canadian churches and institutions bear the names of those who never came back. They fought and laid down their lives for the freedom and enjoyment of those in the country they loved.
The current bickering, threats and ultimatums being imposed on Canadians make us unworthy of the ultimate sacrifice of these men. What then is the solution? The answer, I believe, is reason, fairness, justice and the absence of the meddling influence of power-hungry politicians and media, which increasingly inflames issues.
Reason tells us that there may well be a national divorce. Fairness tells us that the people, and the people alone, without political influence, should be the ones to decide the outcome of this nation. Justice tells us that the terms and consequences would be severe for Quebeckers and English Canada alike under certain world trends.
1550
Quebec's past and present benefits from the Canadian Confederation have been many and significant. It is reasonable for English Canadians to be distressed by the lack of positive recognition of this fact on the part of their Quebec counterparts. It is not necessary to list the industries that have been financially endowed by the federal government or government operations relocated to Hull and other sections of Quebec and the financial input into the life and culture of the province.
The unrealistic demands and proposals currently emanating from Quebec beg to be addressed and put into perspective with an element of authority, conviction and integrity, the very qualities of our missing leadership.
With a national debt approaching $400 billion, English Canadians are not thrilled or impressed by the cost of a bilingual program that daily consumes the equivalent of 45 years' total salary at $36,000 a year, the lifetime working income of one person to pay for one day. I call that more than a generous contribution to the preservation of Quebec's linguistic heritage, even more generous in view of the restrictive treatment of the English language through Quebec's Bill 178.
Any constitutional agreement is a two-way street. We cannot for ever continue to be the constant provider of accommodations for this process. Measures like Ontario's Bill 8 are perceived by many as falling victim to some form of ever-widening process of gerrymandering. Some would insist that the inclusion of Metropolitan Toronto's 2.2% francophone population under the bilingual umbrella is confirmation of their claim.
Make no mistake, if Quebec opts for sovereignty, I fear it will not be a radically decentralized federation; it will be a divorced state. The belief that the federal government's functions could be almost reduced to debt management and equalization payments is without doubt the most extreme of fantasies.
It appears, however, that the creation of an independent Quebec would precipitate the cessation of public interest and concern in its culture, linguistic programs and employment procedures.
However, I will conclude by stating my belief that most Canadian and Ontario residents sincerely hope that our neighbours in the province of Quebec will divest themselves of the distorted opportunistic options being conveyed to them by those who seek only the acquisition of power, for it is only the harmonious, quiet sharing and enjoyment of this great land that can bring honour and dignity to the memory of those who lie in distant fields.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Mr Clappison, you talk about a vacuum of leadership, but you have taken a very broad brush and said there is no leadership in your opinion at the political level, there is no leadership at the media. Who do you feel is going to come forward at this very crucial moment ?
Mr Clappison: I believe that is our problem; that is the bottom line. In this situation I am more fearful than I ever was by the sight of troops in the streets during the Front de libération du Québec crisis. I believe that this time there will not even be a defence for either side. I feel that the tensions have for partisan reasons, and I say this sadly as an ex-supporter of the government -- I feel it is that serious.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: All right; I will leave that. I hope that you have some hopefulness left because it seems strange that you, with so little hopefulness in any process, would come before our committee because it does take preparation and time to do it.
Mr Clappison: Now wait a minute. I believe we need to focus on the real issues of where we are at. We cannot start and work towards any giant problem without having an inventory of what has happened. I believe the problem we face in the future negotiations has stemmed from this fact of redirecting the blame. I believe the blame was the process. I believe it would have been possible to bring people together if it had not been directed towards a confrontation and the final results.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: You are thinking there is still room for negotiation, you can now use that word which you did not use?
Mr Clappison: I believe there would be room for negotiation, but I believe it will have to be a negotiation that is sincere, sincerely open to the people and sincere by its nature and substance. I say this because I can truthfully say that I feel this committee today presents a totally different tone than the last time I was here. I am heartened. Perhaps if I had been this exposed to more of this committee and seen it on television more -- I have not seen this committee on television -- had I seen that, my spirit might have been softened. But I do feel we are in a very difficult stage, we are in a crunch, and the issues seem to be much larger at this time and they will be more difficult to bring together.
REG WHITAKER
The Chair: I invite next Reg Whitaker.
Mr Whitaker: I provided the clerk with a written brief. I am Reg Whitaker. I am a professor of political science at York University. In the limited time available, I would like to address the question of Quebec and the distinct, very real possibility that Quebec will shortly be initiating moves to sovereignty.
I think there has been a somewhat distressing tendency among Ontario spokespersons to avoid facing this reality, and even a tendency to suggest that discussion of this possibility will somehow hasten its realization or give encouragement to those forces in Quebec that wish to separate. I think this is a very serious mistake, leaving open the possibility that Ontario and the rest of Canada outside Quebec will be left without any coherent voice or sense of direction if Quebec does turn down this road, which I believe is now likely.
I think there are only three options available to Canada outside Quebec in the face of the demands that we have already seen from the Allaire commission and which we will soon be seeing from the Bélanger-Campeau commission in Quebec.
Those three options are, first of all, that if we wish to retain Quebec as part of Canada, we have to adopt their first option, which would be what has been called asymmetrical federalism or some form of extreme special status for Quebec. Under this option, Quebec achieves virtual sovereignty by the transfer of a whole series of powers to its own jurisdiction. Yet at the same time, Quebec would continue to send representatives to Ottawa, would continue to make or break Canadian governments as Quebec voters have always done in the past, and Quebec MPs would be making decisions affecting the lives of Canadians outside Quebec which were of little or no interest to their own constituents.
If you look at the Allaire report Canadians would be, I think, rightly outraged at the notion of Quebec obtaining virtual sovereignty while the rest of us were obliged to manage the national debt and to pay equalization to Quebec. It really does not seem to be a reasonable option.
Option two would be a kind of sovereignty-association for all or special status for all. Under this option, all provinces would either be given the same powers given to Quebec or all provinces would be given the option of exercising those powers. I think the result here would be either a federalism so decentralized as to lead to a situation where one really would not see a Canada that was recognizable, or a kind of crazy quilt of a country in which there was no uniformity of treatment and no universality and no national standards.
I think it is no accident that this option has been advocated recently by what I might call neo-conservative economists, who wish to reduce, if not eliminate, the role of government in favour of unregulated market forces. I think a decentralized or patchwork Canada would make impossible the kind of functioning of national and universal social programs such as medicare, which Canadians support very strongly.
If the price to be paid for maintaining national unity, that is Canada with Quebec, under these first two options is unacceptably high, then Ontario must begin to contemplate the possibility of a Canada without Quebec. An ostrich-like avoidance of the problem will not impede its appearance; it will only impair our ability to cope effectively when it happens.
1600
Now I would like very briefly, and I have touched on these in greater detail in the written brief, to talk about three aspects. First of all, economic relationships of Ontario with Quebec, if Quebec were to be independent. Basically what I am suggesting is that perhaps the prospects are not as scary as some people would suggest, that particularly in the era of free trade -- even if we may not all particularly like the results of free trade, it is the era of free trade on a broader scale than just North America -- I think a great deal could be achieved to maintain the economic relationships between Ontario and Quebec, which are very important to both Ontario and to Quebec, by simply regulating them through treaty, the sovereign Canada and the sovereign Quebec.
I would suggest, for example, a fundamental treaty which would stipulate the free movement of capital goods and people between the two countries. Other things could be done as well, I think, that would avoid having a whole lot of machinery that would exist as some unaccountable and unrepresentative level of government to regulate the relations. This has sometimes been seen as sovereignty-association. I think a lot of it could be done basically by treaty and it would be to the advantage of everybody to do so.
The second point is about the political ramifications of a Canada without Quebec. Here it is obvious that if Quebec does leave, Ontario has half the population. I suppose that a superficial kind of Ontario-first mentality might say that, "That is wonderful." I think a little bit of reflection indicates that the inevitable reaction in western and Atlantic Canada should convince us that this is a problem, not an advantage.
But I think the problem could be solved by reforming the national institutions of government to offer more effective regional representation, which I think would be a good thing in any event in a federation and is something that has been very high on the agenda of western Canadians for some time. I think really Ontario should adopt the same statesmanlike position which successive premiers from John Robarts to David Peterson took in the past in making concessions to Quebec to keep the federation together. This time the concessions would be made to fellow English Canadians and aimed at keeping Canada, without Quebec, together.
Ontario is really in a pivotal position to make Canada without Quebec work better and more harmoniously. Indeed it offers a lot of possibilities for a better system of government, one that would be closer to the people. I think a lot of the reforms that have been advocated in the past would have been impossible to achieve so long as the Quebec question has always been at the forefront of the Constitution agenda. If Quebec is removed, it does open up a lot of possibilities.
I should just mention in passing that I think it is important that Ontario make its intentions known in advance. We all heard the Prime Minister make a speech here in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, or last week, in which he said that if Quebec left, westerners and Maritimers would be dominated and exploited by Ontario with its population advantage. I think Ontario should indicate that national unity is not served by dividing Canadians against Canadians and make it clear that Ontario would act in the interests of the country as a whole, whether that country includes or excludes Quebec.
Finally the last point I want to make, and it is an unavoidable one I suppose if one is contemplating the possibility, perhaps the likelihood, of Quebec leaving, is the question of bilingualism and the linguistic rights of the francophone minority in Ontario. It is of course very hard to see how, in a Canada without Quebec, bilingualism would be retained on the basis that it is now.
On the other hand, it might very well be considered in the interests -- I do not know -- of Ontario to make, and indeed in advance, some suggestion that in fact the historic rights of francophones in this province, as probably in New Brunswick where there would be a similar case, would be protected whatever the national situation would be. At least, it is certainly owed to the francophone population that some advance idea is given as to what the position of Ontario will be in the light of these changes.
In conclusion, my main point is that if change of this kind comes, it will come probably very quickly and will create a very serious crisis throughout the country, and that it is much better to contemplate the options now, rather than try to avoid them. A calm, rational analysis of the option of Quebec sovereignty should not discount the costs and risks, but it should also point out that as in all crisis situations, dangers coincide with opportunities. Ontario should consider now how to maximize the opportunities and to minimize the dangers while time permits.
Mr Malkowski: I found your presentation very interesting. Do you feel Ontario should establish a report similar to, say, what happened in Quebec with the Allaire report, simply to outline what our objectives would be if the situation comes to a separation?
Mr Whitaker: I think that would be an excellent idea. Yes, I would approve of that very much.
Mr Winninger: You presented a scenario here where Quebec would become sovereign and the rest of Canada would exist in parallel in a sovereign state. I wonder if there is a legitimate concern, however, that if Quebec were to separate from the rest of Canada, it would propel the forces of fragmentation further. On our travels we have heard from the north and how some people in the north would actually want to form a separate province in the north. We have seen the resurgence of regionalism in the Reform Party out west and it has also gained a toe-hold here in Ontario.
I am just wondering, if we see Quebec separate, whether we will not see a lot more fragmentation, rather the kind of cohesion that you would confer upon a national government that would be sensitive to regional issues which you have suggested might be more likely to occur without Quebec than with Quebec in the fold. I wonder if you could comment on that.
Mr Whitaker: Obviously that is a danger, although on the other hand, if the only thing holding the rest of Canada together were Quebec, it is not a very good advertisement for what this country is outside Quebec.
I think there is a much stronger sense of nationalism that exists in all parts of the country. You mentioned the Reform Party in the west and it is quite striking that the Reform Party really does not represent, I think, so much regionalism as the desire to be, as they say, in, not out, and they see that in terms of reforming the national institutions of government, as I was suggesting would be possible and desirable and necessary, particularly once Quebec is gone, if it goes, to better reflect the regional interests at the centre.
It seems to me that is really why it is so incumbent in Ontario, if this comes about, to take the lead in refashioning a new Canada that would begin from the premise that we should stay together. I do not think it is in anybody's interests, certainly not little breakaway provinces and certainly not joining the United States where the political clout would be far less than it would be in a Canada even without Quebec.
1610
This is an opportunity to fashion the country in a way that it has been very hard to do so long as there has really been a Quebec-driven constitutional agenda. It seems to me that one of the characteristics of a Quebec-driven constitutional agenda -- I think we are seeing it right now -- is that Quebec's concern is always to, for example, if you are talking about the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments, Quebec can only see it going one way. That is fine; I understand it from their point of view.
But if we were really, rationally to look at the BNA Act and the distribution of powers in 1867 -- that was a long time ago and it is a very different world in the late 20th century -- we might say, "Let us rationally reallocate these powers." Some would go down to the provinces, undoubtedly, that are now being exercised by the federal government, but some should probably go up to the federal government, and that cannot happen as long as Quebec is driving the agenda. I think there are opportunities. Nobody likes to see a country break up, but what I am suggesting is, there are all kinds of possibilities that are there if that does happen.
Mr Offer: In your presentation, you have spoken about a number of different options, all of which are premised on some form of the province acquiring increased powers from the central government in one way or another. I am wondering if you have directed your mind to some of the scenarios where that is not the underlying premise, where the premise is not a province acquiring more powers, more responsibilities from the central government but rather the provinces acquiring a greater say in the powers exercised by the central government. In other words, not so much, "I need this particular responsibility as a province which is now exercised by the central government," but rather, "Because of regional interests, for a whole variety of reasons, I need, as a province, a greater say in how those particular powers are exercised." I am wondering if you have thought about that particular aspect and what scenarios may unfold from that.
Mr Whitaker: Again, those options I suggested were options, I think, that are available in response to what is coming from Quebec. What I am really trying to get at is that in some ways we should try to break out of simply responding to Quebec, which does, I think, push things always in the direction of more powers to the province and which may not always be in the interests of the rest of the country which does not have the same kind of reasons for doing that. Indeed, many provinces, not including Ontario but other provinces, are too poor to really handle that kind of devolution of powers and it would not be in their interests at all, Atlantic Canada in particular.
I would lay a great deal of emphasis on the importance of restructuring the national institutions to reflect the regional or provincial interests at the centre. I think that is very important. I think there are a number of things that in the late 20th-century world of economic globalization and so on really do have to be exercised from the centre; things such as, for example, environmental protection and international agreements that try to cope with the effect of pollution on the global environment, and the need to have a strong central government, not just here but in other countries, to actually enforce those agreements at the centre. At the same time, certainly there is need to have representation of the different parts of the country, especially a country as diverse as this, so that it is not simply dominated by one province and one set of interests. I agree with that.
Ms Churley: Your last statement will allow me to change my question, actually, because you essentially answered the question I was going to ask. You mention environmental protection. That is of interest to me, and in fact that gets us to, I think, a central point in terms of the Liberal Quebec report. It suggested that the environment be one area that Quebec would keep within its jurisdiction. I believe that is an area that is lacking on the whole in this whole discussion, how and who decides where these very important issues end up, and I would like to hear your comment on that, given that the Liberal Party of Quebec is saying it would like to keep the environment within its own jurisdiction at the same time as the environmentalists across the country right now, I believe, are trying to centralize so that we have more uniform regulation for environmental protection.
Mr Whitaker: This is just one more example that leads me to think that Quebec sovereignty is inevitable and probably a good thing for both Quebec and Canada. I think one has to understand why Quebeckers are so concerned. It is not just the Liberals, I think, and we will certainly see that from the Bélanger-Campeau commission. Everybody says this in Quebec and a whole host of other areas. You really have to see this in the context of a people who see themselves as a nation and simply want to have the requisite powers vested in their government to do all these things nation-states do.
On the other hand, in the rest of the country there simply is not that kind of sentiment attaching to the provinces, nor should there be. And there is a sense, certainly in the case of environmental protection, that it is not even rational to limit this to provincial jurisdictions. You have to cope with it on an international level, but, as I was just saying a moment ago to Mr Offer, you cannot even cope with it on an international level if you do not have the kind of machinery in your own central government that can enforce international agreements and carry out the kind of actions that are required in order to make that work.
I really do think there are two different agendas that exist in Quebec and in the rest of the country which are really not compatible in many ways.
CLAY DERSTINE
The Chair: I call Clay Derstine.
M. Derstine: Je voudrais assurer qu'il y a parmi vous une copie de notre présentation. J'aurais pu vous parler pour deux heures et on m'a informé que je n'avais que dix minutes. Alors je vais faire la présentation dans la langue majoritaire afin de laisser un peu d'espace pour répondre aux questions.
I assume we are all here to try to patch together an alternative vision of our country, a vision which has the power to compete for the support of all Canadians, a vision to replace the old Canada, which is about to break in pieces. It is past time that this be done. In our village world, some powers must be delegated from our anachronistic nation-states to world organizations, and some centralized sovereignty must devolve to our unique provinces, cities and neighbourhoods. This metamorphosis, this amending of the old rigidities, this reapportioning of sovereignties can be creative and a healthy process if we insist that our collective vision be empowered with imagination.
I am here this afternoon to plead with you not to envisage a diminished Canada, a barebones skeleton, a lowest common denominator. I am here to plead with you, to implore you to help create a society which will enhance the quality of life shared by its members, to foresee a country setting fresh common perspectives and revived national standards. Not how much less can we put up with, but how much dare we expect? Let us build on our strengths, not subtract from them. Let us attain to splendour.
1620
In this vein, I am here this afternoon as an educator to propose one aspect of this enhanced vision. Let us begin education, schooling, in our province and in our country immediately after our children are out of diapers, around two years old, as do advanced countries all over the world, in Europe, in Africa, in the East. This breakthrough would solve once and for all the ever more critical day care crisis, which is now putting all but the children of the very poor and the rich at risk.
As women continue their fight for fair opportunities, this initiative would redefine fathering and mothering. For the one in 10 of our children who now require special education, early assessment and early treatment would change their lives miraculously. From two to five years old, when children have an optimum talent to acquire languages almost effortlessly, we could provide, for all our children, fluency in both languages of this country and at least one language of its communities. We could provide fluency not by verb declensions and vocabulary lists but naturally, by means of songs and dances and games, all before the child enters the traditional elementary cycle. It is a revolution in education to be able to time the delivery of the stimulation to the child's maximum capacity to absorb that material.
This splendid solution would build on the heritage of languages now alive in our bicultural and mosaic Canada. It would rid us once and for all of antiquated terms such as "mother tongue," and it would make us redefine what we meant by the perils of assimilation and the achievements of immersion. By graduation, Canadian children would be uniquely equipped to compete and contribute in the new competitions of our village world. Splendour indeed.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you for your presentation. One point you made strikes me as very interesting: one out of every 10 children now requires special education, and early assessment and early treatment will change their lives miraculously. Are you using a medical model in terms of identifying these children? Could you expand on what you meant by that statement?
Mr Derstine: When our kids go to school, it takes them several years, the way it is now, before they are finally identified as having some specific problem, and then we go through a procedure called IPRC, where that problem is tried to be pinned down, and then once we pin a label on the kid's forehead, it takes us a number of years more before we treat what is behind that label. As a result, many kids suffer a process they would not need to suffer if they were identified from two years on in early childhood education.
In France, for instance, where they take for granted that school starts at two, the kids are identified earlier, they are treated before they are scarred by the whole process, and the huge, expensive bureaucracy of special education is cut down immeasurably, and the anguish to the children is cut down inconceivably.
Mr Malkowski: That is fine. For example, for deaf French-speaking children in Ontario, there are not enough resources to provide a French sign language environment. There are a number of resources lacking. What might be your solution to this problem? Do you have any creative solutions?
Mr Derstine: Once again, all I can say is the earlier they find a diagnosis and the earlier they find treatment the better they are at accommodating themselves to what is being diagnosed.
Mr Beer: We have heard some discussion around the options that face the country, and people looking at different sorts of scenarios and then suggesting that perhaps the separation of Quebec, if that is really what it wants to do, is perhaps the best route and we should try to sit down and in as mature a way as possible work out that separation. I sense from your presentation it is still your hope that somehow we can find our way through all of this, but as somebody who I know has been involved in working with French- and English-speaking Canadians over a great deal of time -- a lot of your ideas, which we have worked with over the last 25 years, sought to bring about greater understanding between English- and French-speaking Canadians, the development of various bilingualism programs and the like. If indeed Quebec says, "That's nice, we think you're nice people, but frankly we see ourselves as a nation and at this point in time we want to move that other step and have good relationships but we want to be an independent country," what kind of impact do you think that has on the kinds of things you and others within the country have been fighting for, and how does that relate to the kind of spirit that is in your presentation today? Do you think we will still see in the "rest of Canada" an openness to linguistic rights or even to multiculturalism or do you think we can just avoid having to face all of those issues?
Mr Derstine: I figure there is an urgency that we begin the kind of process I am talking about, and I hope I will manage to convince the current government as soon as possible of that urgency. One of the reasons I am here is in order to begin that quest. At the same time, if that initiative came from Ontario to make language facility one of the major keys in what it meant to be a Canadian, and certainly if it helped solve the feelings of alienation among so many of our new Canadians if we incorporated as well their capacity to use one of their home tongues at school in order to encourage fluency, in order to produce at the other end Canadians who could go out into our village world and function in all the languages of the world, it would give us that kind of identity that so many of us are scuttling around trying to find.
I have tried to be as positive as possible. Certainly, I am fearful that if Quebec did separate it would move back into a ghetto of unilingualism for a certain amount of time, and I would hate to see that. I think the tendencies we noticed in Prescott-Russell a while back are to be feared. To me, there is no question that one is richer with another tongue rather than poorer. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished that Quebec would see an openness, but if Quebec leaves, it would still to me be an option that would weld us together with the west, where they already have German-English schools and Ukrainian-English schools that fit into their programs. I would figure this would be a way of adding another dimension to their wish to remain with us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Derstine.
1630
DIALOGUE CANADA, TORONTO CHAPTER
The Chair: I invite Jeffrey Graham, Anne-Marie Caron-Réaume, Tom McQuiston from Dialogue Canada, the Toronto chapter. Go ahead.
Mr Graham: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. My name is Jeff Graham and my colleagues and co-presenters are Anne-Marie Caron-Réaume and Tom McQuiston.
We are appearing this afternoon on behalf of the Toronto chapter of Dialogue Canada. Dialogue Canada is a non-profit, non-partisan group of individuals from across Canada who have come together as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake accord ratification, having a common desire to promote tolerance and understanding within Canada's pluralistic society.
The catalyst for the group is a professor at the University of Ottawa, Professor John Trent. Copies of background information on Dialogue Canada have been circulated, or are in fact being circulated as I speak to you, along with a paper Professor Trent has written on the issue of Canadian values.
One of Canada's greatest gifts to the world is its capacity to achieve consensus through tolerance and mutual understanding. Throughout its history, Canada has developed creative strategies to encourage different ethnic, linguistic and regional groups to live together in relative harmony. As a result, Canada has in the eyes of many in our global community achieved that exalted status unequalled anywhere else in the world, a truly peaceable kingdom.
In recent decades, Canada has become an increasingly complex society. Large numbers of newcomers have joined us from regions of the world traditionally unrepresented in Canadian society. While these new Canadians have made the challenge of building national consensus more difficult in the short term, they are often Canada's proudest citizens, for they appreciate better than most of us what a wonderful country Canada is by comparison to most other countries in the world.
The failure to ratify the Meech Lake accord this past summer represented for many of us the clearest evidence to date that our cherished ability to achieve national consensus was at risk and that urgent steps had to be taken to reassert the importance of tolerance and mutual understanding as we prepare to make far-reaching changes to our Constitution. The members of Dialogue Canada believe that if Canada is to thrive as we enter the 21st century we must find ways of understanding the needs and aspirations of all Canadians so that we may find creative and dynamic ways to ensure that all Canadians feel proud to be Canadian.
The process of constitutional reform in which we now find ourselves should be understood as a great opportunity for all Canadians. Far from something to fear, it should be seen as an opportunity for communities within this country which have felt disadvantaged to achieve a new place in the federation.
The catalyst for change has been the efforts of the government of the province of Quebec to achieve a new role in Canada which permits French-speaking Canadians in the province to rededicate themselves to Canada. Our native communities and western Canadians, among others, should be particularly grateful that this process of change has been accelerated. In the final analysis, we must ensure that no Canadian feels he is prejudiced in this process. We can all win if the process is well managed in a non-partisan manner by people with a broad and tolerant vision of our country.
There is nothing to fear from the process of change. That is not to say that those who feel threatened can be ignored. The opponents to change are for the most part acting out of either ignorance or fear for their economic livelihoods. We must not allow these voices of intolerance to control the political agenda. At the same time, we must take steps to ensure that those who feel threatened by change are indeed protected.
The failure to ratify the Meech accord was first and foremost a failure of our elected leaders to build a national consensus on the need for change and the content of change. There would, I expect, have been far less criticism today about the process if the agreement reached had reflected a national consensus. This committee, similar committees in other provinces and the Spicer commission are all contributing to the necessary process of building a national consensus. However, we must not consider that this process will come to an end once the various reports of these committees are tabled. The process of constitutional change must continue to be open and participatory. Neither the provincial nor the federal government can adequately represent all Canadians in this process. There must be a seat at the table for each of the communities which make up the country. Only in this way can we ensure that the changes to the Constitution ultimately reflect the truly agreed upon values of a national consensus.
Overcoming the sentiment held by so many Canadians that all provinces must be treated equally is in my judgement key to the successful conclusion of this process of constitutional reform. In my view, the premise is based on an honest misunderstanding of current constitutional realities and a misapplication of the honoured Canadian value which insists that no one should be treated better than anybody else. In my view, one of our great challenges, if we are to be successful in this process, is that we must help Canadians understand that all provinces are not alike. First, they have never been. Second, many of the existing federal programs are designed to redress inequalities in resources among provinces. Third, there are more efficient ways to help the small and weak than by treating both big and small the same. We must help Canadians understand that all provinces and regions in this country enjoy a special status in this country and that we are better off seeking to build a flexible and dynamic set of arrangements between the provinces, the regions and the federal governments than trying to fit everyone into the same mold.
Frankly, I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians, including some members of the media who should know better, who suggest that if Quebec is not willing to accept the terms dictated by the rest of the country, it should go. How un-Canadian are such views.
After 123 years one would think that more English-speaking Canadians would appreciate just how vital and dynamic a part of Canada the province of Quebec has become. We in English Canada are poorer for having largely ignored the richness of French Canadian culture -- its writers, its playwrights, its film makers and musicians. We have in our midst a world-class cultural community that most Canadians are not able to appreciate. Why in heaven's name would we as Canadians want to deprive our children of the opportunity of living as Canadians in Montreal or Quebec City, visiting the Laurentians, the Gaspé or the Lac-Saint-Jean region? Do we not understand the tremendous resource the French language can be to all English Canadians in pursuing career opportunities in and outside of Canada? How could any of you, who are playing the important role in this debate, explain to your children how you gave up fully one quarter of their heritage because of your inability to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of French Canadians?
I will now briefly comment on three of the questions raised in your public discussion paper; my colleagues will comment on the others.
First, "How can we secure our future in the international economy?" All Canadians must understand how important our ability to compete internationally is to our continued economic prosperity. There are few countries in the world so dependent on international trade. Neither we nor our elected leaders can afford to misunderstand the impact of the doctrine of comparative economic advantage.
We must ensure that there is an efficient allocation of resources in this country between the private and public sectors. We cannot afford to waste money on government spending. Overlapping or conflicting federal government programs and those of the provinces can no longer be tolerated by Canadians. The government must be an efficient partner in the quest for the economic wellbeing of all Canadians.
My colleague Tom McQuiston will discuss the role of Quebec in Canada. I will now briefly discuss what is the place of the west, the north and the Maritimes. Each region of this country is a special and vital part of this country. We must ensure that our existing national institutions respond to the challenges and needs of each region. One cannot legislate an end to regional alienation. An elected Senate with a redefined role may not necessarily accomplish this objective -- that is to say, to eliminate regional alienation -- any better than a chamber of provincial representatives or the body as currently constituted. One must not confuse the natural tensions between governments of virtually co-equal status -- that is to say, the federal government and the provincial governments in this country -- with the need to ensure that national policies truly reflect a national consensus. In this regard, the media bear an important responsibility in helping Canadians in each region understand the special contributions made by other Canadians in building this country.
Finally, what should Ontario want? Ontario should want all Canadians, all Canadian provincial governments and all regions of Canada to be excited about this country's future and willing to work together for the collective good. Ontario should want a constitutional framework which ensures an effective allocation of resources between governments and the private sector and among governments themselves. It should want a level playing field for the distribution of economic opportunities within Canada. It should want an opportunity to contribute its linguistic, racial and cultural diversity to building strong national institutions. As the most populous and economically powerful province, Ontario has no choice but to play a leadership role in resolving the key questions of our time, the redefinition of the status of Quebec and other regions within Canada and the status of our native people.
Thank you for your attention.
1640
Mme Caron-Réaume : En tant que partisane de Dialogue Canada et Franco-Ontarienne de souche, je vous soumets aujourd'hui ma liste de valeurs et de politiques que le Canada et l'Ontario auraient mérite à conserver en ce moment critique de notre histoire. Ces idées sont basées sur mes expériences de la vie et sur les discussions que j'ai eues avec les membres de Dialogue Canada et mes collègues de travail. Je voudrais commencer en partageant l'histoire de ma mère, histoire qui marqua profondément ma vie.
Ma mère est née en 1900 dans une famille pauvre de la région de l'Est. Quand elle a eu à fréquenter l'école, elle n'avait pas de choix il n'y avait que l'école de langue anglaise. Elle ne connaissait pas la langue d'enseignement ou la langue de communication de l'école. Aucun ajustement n'était fait dans le programme pour elle et ces jeunes francophones qui avaient à acquérir les connaissances et à se créer des amitiés dans une langue qui leur était étrangère.
Dans une telle situation, l'humiliation était constante : elle sentait qu'elle était dans un état d'infériorité par rapport au groupe majoritaire anglophone. Ce n'est qu'à l'âge de seize ans, quand une tante lui donna l'occasion de se préparer à l'enseignement dans une école modèle de Windsor, que ma mère a pu apprendre à bien lire et à bien écrire dans sa langue maternelle. Devenue enseignante dans une école rurale où tous les élèves étaient Franco-Ontariens, ma mère continuait à sentir la menace face à sa langue et à sa culture. Le Règlement 17 interdisait le français comme langue d'enseignement et comme langue de communication.
Quelle est la situation pour les francophones en 1991 ? La promulgation des langues officielles au niveau fédéral et de la Loi 8 en Ontario a donné l'occasion aux citoyens d'employer le français ou l'anglais quand ils communiquent avec les préposés des bureaux désignes des institutions gouvernementales. L'article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés garantit aux minoritaires francophones ou anglophones de toutes les provinces le droit à l'éducation dans leur langue maternelle. De plus, la désignation de l'Ontario comme province officiellement bilingue serait désirable.
En tant que francophone de l'Ontario, je commence à sentir que je suis citoyenne à part entière, que ma langue et ma culture sont respectées, que j'ai quelque chose de précieux à contribuer au bien-être de la province et du pays. Dans ma vision du Canada, il importe que tous les minoritaires du pays jouissent du même sentiment d'appartenance. Malgré l'échec du Lac Meech, malgré les voix discordantes de la bigoterie et du racisme, malgré le désir de nombreux citoyens du Québec de quitter le Canada, il est urgent que l'Ontario et les autres provinces du Canada réaffirment les valeurs fondamentales de partage, de tolérance, de respect, d'acceptation de la diversité et de l'équité. Si on se limite au domaine de l'éducation pour illustrer ces valeurs, qu'est-ce que cela veut dire?
Afin de donner les chances égales aux francophones et aux anglophones minoritaires, il faut des arrangements spéciaux qui assurent la qualité des programmes et services livrés dans la langue et la culture privilégiées. Que dire des peuples autochtones qui cherchent à passer leur langue et leur culture à leurs enfants ? Pour que ce peuple puisse évoluer et contribuer à la société, il doit se sentir respecté et jouir des droits acquis par les deux autres peuples fondateurs du pays. Un système d'éducation qui encourage le sens positif de l'identité, qui met en évidence des valeurs propres à la culture par les programmes d'études contribuerait à la richesse du pays, tant au niveau des ressources humaines qu'au niveau du partage des valeurs fondamentales. Par exemple, les peuples autochtones ont beaucoup à partager quant au respect de l'environnement physique.
Que dire des élèves de minorités visibles et de minorités ethnoculturelles qui arrivent au Canada en très grand nombre en tant qu'immigrants ou réfugiés ? Lorsque le Canada décide d'accueillir les gens de cultures et de races différentes, il s'engage aux niveaux financier et humain à les intégrer à une société qui valorise leur apport. On doit s'assurer de mettre en place des programmes éducatifs et les services de base pour que les nouveaux arrivés deviennent des citoyens qui connaissent les lois et partagent les valeurs canadiennes. En même temps, tel qu'énoncé dans les politiques sur le multiculturalisme, il importe que la langue et la culture de chaque élève soient valorisées puisque l'estime de soi et l'identité en dépendent. Le programme des langues d'origine est une contribution importante que le pays devrait conserver. Le maintien de l'héritage linguistique des divers groupes ethnoculturels enrichit les individus et le pays.
Deux autres clientèles minoritaires désavantagées ont été dépistées par les institutions gouvernementales : l'enfance en difficulté et les jeunes filles. Des ajustements dans les programmes au point de vue langue et culture sont aussi importants dans ces cas, afin d'assurer un traitement équitable et l'élimination des barrières qui pourraient empêcher leur participation entière à la vie de la société. Les jeunes sourds ont le droit de choisir la langue de communication qui leur convient le mieux. Les élèves souffrant d'anomalies physiques ou de problèmes socioaffectifs ont droit au soutien de base. La langue et la culture de l'école se doivent de respecter la contribution égale des filles et des garçons l'absence de stéréotypes sexuels, la protection contre l'agression physique ou la violence psychologique sont de mise.
Si on accepte qu'aucun groupe n'est supérieur a l'autre et donc qu'aucun groupe dominant dicte sa volonté à un groupe subalterne dans notre pays, cela veut dire que le Canada est contre le racisme, le sexisme, la bigoterie et l'oppression. Cela veut dire que le Canada est pour le respect de la dignité de la personne, l'acceptation et l'appréciation de la diversité, la promotion de mesures spéciales pour obtenir des résultats égaux pour les groupes minoritaires et la promotion de l'ouverture d'esprit qui encourage l'interaction avec l'autre sur un pied d'égalité.
Les valeurs fondamentales de partage, de tolérance, de respect, d'acceptation de la diversité et de l'équité seraient donc à la base de l'identité canadienne.
Ce canevas de valeurs que je propose favoriserait les façons multiples de voir et de résoudre les problèmes et les conflits, le travail visant un but commun accompli en collaboration avec d'autres qui ont des antécédents différents et la mise à profit de la technologie pour améliorer la communication aux niveaux national et international.
Ce canevas de valeurs appliquées au monde de l'éducation et généralisées aux diverses institutions gouvernementales du pays assurera que l'histoire de bigoterie vécue par ma mère ne se répétera pas et que tous les minoritaires jouiront d'un sentiment d'appartenance au Canada.
Mr McQuiston: I wish to address two questions from the committee's public discussion paper: first of all, question 6, "What is Quebec's future in Canada?" and, second, question 3, "What roles should the federal and provincial governments play?"
Members of Dialogue Canada have no difficulty in recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec society and the essential part that Quebec has played in providing Canada with its distinctive national character in North America. We admire the revolutionary and the progressive steps taken by Quebec in the last 30 years in the field of politics, economics, education and the arts, steps which have made Quebec a productive and a dynamic society and have won it international recognition. We regret, however, that within Canada itself, and after 123 years of Confederation, the two dominant linguistic groups still exist as two solitudes, living for the most part in ignorance one of another. This situation reflects the profound failure of our educational systems and of our national media.
Nevertheless, up to the present Canada has shown itself to be a society capable of providing both a remarkable degree of personal liberty and a high standard of living for its citizens. Canada is a vast country with a relatively small population. To entertain the idea of Canada without Quebec is to accept the loss of 25% of our population and a corresponding weakening of our capacity to develop effectively the very abundant resources of this band.
Without Quebec we would face the prospect of an association of regions heavily unbalanced economically, politically and demographically by Ontario, resulting in continuing instability and a decrease in our standard of living.
1650
Our hope is that the national integrity of Canada can be maintained and that the creativity and the energy of the Québécois will continue to play a significant role in building our common Canadian future.
Regarding question 3 and the roles of the federal and provincial governments, we recognize that the present constitutional debate does not focus exclusively on the Quebec agenda. The problems of Confederation and the solutions to them reflect the needs and must address the concerns of all provinces.
Since 1867 new areas of jurisdiction have emerged that could not have been anticipated at that time, such as the advances in science and technology and the need to protect national health and so on. Along with two world wars and an economic depression, these have brought about changes and distortions in the original division of powers that have caused tension and frustration between the central government and the provinces. Overlapping jurisdictions today result in the duplication of services and the growth of sophisticated and very costly bureaucracies. The division of powers needs to be redefined, and terminology such as "peace, order and good government" and "property and civil rights" require clarification, with powers of the central government required to be broad enough to maintain Canada's position on the international scene and to establish national standards concerning, for example, the environment, health care and post-secondary education. A simple monetary union between Quebec and Canada is not enough to serve the best interests of all Canadians.
The central government's function of distributing equalization payments based on the principle of fairness is needed to maintain a measure of equality between the provinces.
National institutions must reflect not only the economic interests of people but their emotional and cultural needs as well. Understanding between the founding linguistic groups in the country is dependent upon the vitality of a national broadcasting system.
The adjustment of federal power should be guided by the desirability of freeing up provincial and local initiatives. The recent agreement between Ottawa and Quebec on the question of immigration may provide a model for future concessions to such initiatives.
The present constitutional impasse is both a challenge and an opportunity. Dependency towards disintegration can be reversed only by the creation of a more effective structure for federalism. We believe that Canadians lack neither the will nor the political ingenuity to make whatever constitutional arrangements are necessary to accommodate Quebec within the federal system, but at the same time satisfying those who wish to maintain a viable central government.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: You have certainly come to us with many Canadian perspectives. You have brought a paper from Ottawa, which I am very happy about, to Toronto that was presented in Sackville, New Brunswick. Are you the same group that we heard from in Sudbury? Is it Dialogue Canada?
Mr Graham: Dialogue Canada. I was informed by one of your clerks that you heard a presentation from a Dialogue Canada group. It is quite possible that it was the Sudbury chapter.
The Chair: It was the Sudbury chapter.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Could you say a little bit to us about the other centres that you find activity in, your membership, and some of the activities that you are involved in?
Mr Graham: It is a very young organization. As I noted, it grew out of the events of last summer and the hard work of Professor Trent and a number of his friends and colleagues in Ottawa. We have no funds. We do not have resources.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: You are trying to get funds.
Mr Graham: There are in excess of 300 individuals who subscribe to the membership. In this area we have a mailing list in excess of 50. We have, since the fall, been organizing monthly meetings which have really been a sense of therapy for those of us who come and have a chance to talk. We have invited people from -- actually, we had a journalist come and speak to us about his views on the issues. We are going to be meeting with people in the Portuguese social services community centre to say a little bit about what their issues and concerns are. It is really meant to be an ongoing effort for those of us who do not pretend to have a sense of all the issues and the perspectives to better understand what some of the people's concerns are.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you for spending your time in meaningful dialogue with us and with others.
Mr Bisson: As was said, we heard from the group from Sudbury, we have heard from you. Do you see any hope?
Mr Graham: Oh, I think there is enormous hope. There is absolutely no reason why you, this group here, or others cannot find a solution to the challenges that are there. I mean, they are clearly daunting. They have befuddled Canadian leaders for the past 30 years, or at least certainly the issues as far as Quebec is concerned, but as long as there is a common will -- and there most certainly is a common will among the people of Canada -- to find solutions to these issues, there is nothing that has been said either in Quebec or in the rest of the country, even by those who are the most radical, that one cannot sit down and find not only a compromise but effective and meaningful solutions for the future. So by all means, you are to be congratulated, the government of this province is to be congratulated by saying the things that it has publicly, and we will all be watching very carefully as you move forward.
Mr Bisson: Thank you very much and keep up the good work.
The Chair: For the information of the members of the committee, we do have three additional presentations that we need to deal with this afternoon, and that will be the end of the session. I realize that is going to take us over the time we had planned, but for various reasons the groups and the individual need to be heard this afternoon. I will ask them to be as brief as they can.
Mr Amber: Before you start, Mr Chairman, we came down here an hour ahead of your committee meeting to try to get on the end of your list if people did not show up, and it is cavalier treatment to allow people, particularly this group here, who came wandering in just about three quarters of an hour ago and give them the chance to speak and deny us. You just made Quebec's case, because I can understand its point of view now, completely, of how things are done in Canada.
The Chair: All right, sir. Let me just say for the benefit of the people who are in the audience that the individual and the groups that we are adding are not people who have simply showed up. There was some confusion, I guess, in whether they were supposed to have been scheduled or not, and that is why we are hearing the individuals. We do not, unfortunately, have time today to be able to deal with people who have simply come here hoping to be heard.
We will have another day back in Toronto on the 28th, and we are in fact going to be dealing later on with a report from the subcommittee of this committee to the full committee dealing with a process to accommodate additional speakers, both on the 28th and on 1 March in Toronto because of the additional requests. We will not be able to do any more than that at this point. I am sorry, I am just going to have to carry on with the speakers that we have on the list for this afternoon.
Mr Valleau: This gentleman is perturbed by his situation. We were planning to help you, Mr Chairman, by suggesting that we could, as long as we were guaranteed that we would appear at a later meeting, be postponed.
The Chair: I am sorry; who are you, sir?
Mr Valleau: I am speaking for Science for Peace.
The Chair: Oh, well, that is fine. If you are willing to do that, we can. However, the problem that we have with the gentleman who spoke is that my understanding is that he simply did come asking to be heard. My concern is that if we open it up in that way to people who are here, then it would be incumbent upon us to open it up to anyone else who is here as well. What I am saying is that we need to be as fair as we can to everyone concerned on that issue, so if it is just the one gentleman I would be quite happy to do that and switch you with your organization if you are offering that. Maybe that is something that some of our people in the back could help us with in the meantime.
CHRIS NAIR
The Chair: I would like to proceed with Mr Nair at this point.
M. Nair: Merci, Monsieur le Président. À l'heure où l'Europe s'unit, à l'heure où le mur de Berlin s'écroule et les communistes s'évanouissent, on voit très mal que le Québec, si on doit avoir affaire avec le gouvernement du Québec, en particulier la province de Québec, veut se dissocier du gouvernement du Canada. Je dois vous rappeler, Monsieur le Président, que ce n'est pas la faute des Canadiens anglais, ce n'est pas la faute des Québécois, c'est la faute de notre gouvernement actuel, le gouvernement conservateur.
I would like here to say that we do not like to see Quebec separate, but we must recognize and accept the verdict of the Québécois, of the government of Quebec and the people of Quebec if they choose to separate.
This government, the government of Ontario, has gone right to the USSR to crown the independence of other republics. The United States has pressured the government of Gorbachev to assure that republics over there be independent. How can we now, in a democratic country like ours, not accept that one province that feels it is mature enough to be separated and not grant it independence? Sure, it is going to be painful, but are they not mature enough to take their decision in their own hands? Yes, they are mature enough to take the decision in their own hands. They have all the resources possible, they have the knowledge, they have the knowhow, they have the territory.
1700
Yes, we have to consider about others. At that time, if they want to separate, Canada has to take a hard look about its citizens in Montreal, in Quebec precisely, the same thing like the government of Quebec had a hard look at when it invaded the reserve band in Kahnawake. They sent the police. Should we be prepared also to defend our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec with the same armed forces that they used to do what they did to the Mohawks in the bands? Are we ready for that?
Let me move from that. I have some recommendations to make now, based on this knowledge. On the new Canada, I would suggest to the committee that because of the latest problem we had with the Senate, some of them were suggesting that the Senate was not valid, was not constitutionally elected and so on. They wanted an elected Senate. I am suggesting here that all judges be not appointed except those in the Supreme Court; all judges should be elected. By this they will ensure that everybody has the same rights. All the judges that will be elected to the Supreme Court should come from the other courts, and in those courts the judges should be elected like the same thing in the United States.
I am fed up with the questions of everybody who comes here in this province or in this country claiming their patriotic feelings to their original countries. We lack that sense of patriotism in this country.
Je recommande au comité qu'il peut avoir certaines mesures, de prendre les dispositions nécessaires afin que ces Canadiens comme moi -- on prête serment à notre pays pour promouvoir notre sens de patriotisme. Et cela doit commencer dans nos écoles. Il faut commencer par «O Canada» ou quelque sorte de truc comme ça. L'être humain en a besoin pour vivre, une maison, et pour s'habiller. À cette fin, je propose que ce comité adopte dans ses discussions avec d'autres provinces ou avec le Canada qu'il faut avoir une certaine assurance aux maisons. Je vais m'expliquer.
I want to explain myself here. When a firm goes bankrupt, governments go and bail them out. When individuals lose their jobs and go bankrupt, they lose their house. Why not have a national insurance scheme to bail them out, where they contribute to certain schemes to take these people out? Big companies, big industries, they get the money to bail them out. You should have a hard look to see that these people here, in the social work here, who work to contribute to the economy, and because the economy is bad they are losing their houses, they cannot afford it. A national scheme should be established so those people can save their houses because they have worked very hard.
Talking about the aboriginal people, we have to define in the Constitution -- everybody tries to be the masters of the ceremony, they try to defend the aboriginal people, yet nothing has been done about it, although piecemeal. Either we have to accept them as Canadians or let them be aboriginals themselves. If we have to accept them as Canadians, we have to give them all the tools necessary for them to live their own life and put on their infrastructures thereby. If we do not do so, then let them be independent. However, we have to recognize that Canada is a signatory of the United Nations conventions. Taking them away from their habitat, destroying their livelihood, destroying their language and inheritance is called genocide and some governments have been practising that here. We have to take a hard look at that.
We have to look also at the question of education factors, that there has been some discrimination in the education business. Only Catholics and Protestants are being funded in this and other provinces across the country, whereas we have Jewish people, we have Indians, we have Italians -- why are they not being funded? Why are only Catholics and Protestants being funded by the taxpayers? The Jewish have a right to be funded by the schools. They have schools. We have to take a hard look at that also. This has to be discussed.
Coming to the questions of abortion and capital punishment, politicians have not been able to enact laws either for or against abortions, either for or against capital punishment. I am suggesting here that during your meeting with other provinces, preparation should be made forward that there should be a referendum every eight years. Because they are delicate matters, people should vote on these matters, either for or against abortion, or for or against capital punishment.
Those are the main points that I want to bring forward to the committee.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, sir, for your presentation at short notice. You are aware of course that the Constitution was repatriated in 1982; Quebec was left out. You are happy with that, quite obviously.
Mr Nair: No. Quebec was not left out. They opted to be out.
Mr Villeneuve: And you are happy with that.
Mr Nair: I am not happy with that one because of the "notwithstanding" clause because it gives some tools. It does not make any difference for them. They are using the same tools, the "notwithstanding" clause. Happy about that or not happy, it does not make any difference now. Beyond Confederation, they are enjoying the same status. As a matter of fact, they are better off than any other provinces.
Mr Villeneuve: I am just wanting to know. You are happy with that, quite obviously. You did not tell us whether you supported Meech Lake or not. Did you?
Mr Nair: No. I did not support Meech Lake, no, and I will not support Meech Lake because Meech Lake gave them certain -- it was not well-defined. The notion of distinct society to me was for them to be distinct and other races to be extinct. I did not like the word "distinct." When you want to protect your own culture, it does not mean that you have to destroy all the cultures to be protected. That is what I did not like with it. We are seeing now what was distinct with them. They were distinct; they have now only spelled it out with the 27 jurisdictions they want.
Mr Villeneuve: You realize that the amending formula also went with Meech Lake and therefore we are back probably worse off than we have ever been vis-à-vis the 1982 situation.
Mr Nair: I would not think so, because I think Quebec is better off now than it was before.
Mr Bisson: For the record, what is the gentleman's name?
The Chair: Chris Nair. Thank you, Mr Nair.
I call Eric Fawcett and John Valleau from Science for Peace.
Mr E. Fawcett: We would prefer to speak on the 28th.
ONTARIO RACE COUNCIL
The Chair: Hasanat Ahmad Syed from the Ontario Race Council.
Mr Syed: Thank you, Chairman and the members of the committee, for giving me this opportunity to appear before the select committee. My presentation is very small and brief but it represents, in a way, the feelings of people who have come to Canada and who have chosen Canada as their homeland.
From the very beginning, I fool obliged to make it clear that what we are discussing today is Canada, which is not the sum total of 10 provinces and the territories. It is much more than that. Canada is a country representing hopes, aspirations and dreams of over 26 million people. They believe, and rightly so, that it is a caring and compassionate society and a country where tolerance, understanding and a spirit of accommodation of each other's points of view are the hallmark of a unique society, and it is for this reason that the people around the world look at us with envy and praise.
1710
Not long ago, an international personality, the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad spoke very highly of Canada, right in Toronto on 16 June 1989 at a dinner attended by 1,500 guests, including Bob Rae. His Holiness spoke of Canadian kindness, of Canadian generosity, of Canadian sense of humanity, of Canadian warmth, of Canadian hospitality and above all of Canadian humility, and he concluded his speech with a prayer that, "Let Canada become all the world, and the whole world become Canada." This is how Canada is seen and perceived.
What has happened to this high-profile country now? I believe there is nothing wrong with the Canadians. Each one of us has a throbbing and a feeling heart, and all of us love Canada and all of us wish to build Canada into a fine and ideal country.
So why are we here? Why are people in Quebec and all across the country engaged in soul-searching? It is because the very soul of Canada is at stake. I know each one of us is honest, sincere and dedicated to the cause of making Canada a lighthouse for the whole world. This we can do only if we cease to think in terms of Ontarians, Albertans or from Quebec.
Perhaps Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was right when he said, "Canada is not up for grabs," and we share his concern. Bob Rae pinpointed the reason rightly when he said, "Economic polices are standing in the way," and Jean Chrétien said it aptly, "The promise of a reborn Canada is overdue."
To my mind there is no constitutional crisis. It only exists in the minds of those politicians who wish to improve their ratings in the polls. What we need today is statesmanship, a vision and a dream of a greater and brighter Canada, in the same way as our founding fathers some 100 years ago conceived of a Confederation. Let us act today courageously so that Canadians of the 21st century think about us and say, "That was the finest hour of Canada, when Canadians joined their mind and soul to carve out a great and a vigorous country."
In this task, the people of Ontario have a very major role to play. Ontarians always feel and perceive as Canadians first. We have to mother this country. Speaking of mother, I recall a story of the days of King Solomon, when two women came fighting to him, each wailing and crying that the baby in dispute was hers. The wailing and the weeping was so convincing that the king for a moment felt lost. Then he had a brainwave and called his guard asking him to slice the baby in two and give half to each one of them. The real mother could not bear the tearing of her baby and implored that the baby may be given to the other woman, and so King Solomon found out the truth. So if Quebec wishes to slice Canada, let it be so and let us see who loves and adores Canada more.
Turning to the economic aspect of the issue, when Bob Rae says, "What the federal government is doing to the economy is not really helping the overall effort to go through as a country," he is right. Even good marriages fall apart in hard times. Perhaps John Crow may be right in his fight on inflation, but as an economist he is incapable of understanding that his policies are hurting the very soul and body of Canada. Recession is a bad time, when people become edgy and angry. It is no wonder that we have become loss tolerant, loss generous and less accommodating.
Without commenting on the merits of free trade, I believe it laid down the real foundation of the disintegration of Canada. The free trade threw open the borders between Canada and USA while tough interprovincial barriers still exist. It is easy for a truck from Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia to roll through the border to the south, but it is very difficult for the truck from Quebec to cross through Ontario, and Alberta on its way to British Columbia. Why for goodness' sake will a person from Quebec look to Manitoba, Alberta or westward when he finds it easier to go to the USA? We must bring down the interprovincial barriers to build a strong Canada.
What holds Canada together is love and understanding of each other. If that is gone, Canada is gone. This is what we need most today.
People in Ontario will have to play a vital and important role. Like a mother, we have to think, what is good for Quebec, what is good for the people of Nova Scotia and what is good for the people of Manitoba and Alberta? When David Peterson, at the famous Meech Lake drama, offered six Senate seats to solve the crisis, the people of Ontario felt good and elated. The people of Ontario will have to go an extra mile instead of asking for their own pound of flesh. They will have to respond to the hopes and aspirations of smaller units.
The tragedy is that none of the politicians in Quebec has a vision and a dream of Canada. What Robert Bourassa and Jacques Parizeau are more concerned with are their own personal ratings in the polls by floating Allaire reports or Bélanger-Campeau commissions.
Frankly, we the ethnic groups in Canada watch in great dismay the fight between the two founding cultures, both rich, and both have given a lot to Canada. I believe if Quebec wants to have more say in immigration, justice, fisheries, post office and telecommunications, let them have it. Canada is priceless. Canada is a lighthouse and it cannot be weighed in the scale of dollars and cents.
Who lives if Canada dies? Canada is a symbol of those moral values which are often absent in countries which have achieved unmatched progress in technology and war machine. When we sing our national anthem and say, "Canada, we stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee," do we?
I close this small presentation with the prayer of His Holiness, "Let Canada become all the world, and the whole world become Canada."
MARTIN AMBER
The Chair: Mr Amber, come forward.
Mr Amber: Without trying to hurt anyone's feelings or appearing negative, Mr Chairman, I would like to say that I have strong feelings of worry when I see people advise me what I should do who sit there and smoke one cigarette after the other, having no use at all for their own body but telling me what I should do with mine.
At the same time, I also have feelings that people do not really know what they have in their minds if they have to come before these committees with a prepared script and read religiously from them as though to say they have no spontaneity and no ability to be able to form their ideas as they go along.
Now I am going to say unequivocally that I do not like the way that some of the people that are sitting in positions of responsibility in the province of Ontario Legislature got there. Some of those people who I speak of know who they are, know the means that they used to got here and know that you could use the word that they cheated to get here, over people whose hard work in their communities contributed to actual things being done, which they took credit for, which they use with smiles behind their backs, under their sleeves and different parts of administrative positions that they got in other offices, and were able to use that as a springboard to gain entrance to these hallowed halls
I call this the temple of talk because I have seen rhetoric expressed by a great many people who have sat in the Legislature, as they have in the House of Commons and other places for years, without ever really contributing anything tangible and anything constructive and anything helpful to people.
1720
As a matter of fact I have seen a trend where people are more interested in hurting people and different groups of people, particularly their political opponents, than helping people, then to wash that away and say, "Well, I am in a position of power." It reminds me of the movie with Robert Redford where a candidate was put in because the gap needed to be filled and because he was good-looking, was able to baloney things quite a bit, you know, on TV and everything, be in the position only to say at the end of the movie, "What do I do now?"
There seems to be a parallel of sorts, all by respect to my friend Mr Rae and to other people like Gerald Caplan who could not believe, a week after it happened, that it had happened, saying the same thing and you could almost see that same thing being said.
We are at a crossroads where a part of Canada and Canada's history is making noises as though it wishes to opt out of what might have been called the Confederation of Canada.
By the way, I have rewritten the words to the song "0 Canada" or the song "The Maple Leaf Forever" so as not to offend anyone, and so as to be a song I think would be better sung as the national anthem than that horrible thing we have. The reason I would not give those words in public is, knowing the way the world is today, within three seconds after I had made them public some enterprising thief would steal them. So I am not going to put those until I have secured, for my own sake, those words that will be, unfortunately like so many things that I have passed over to other people who made the money and everything else from it -- maybe this time I might retain some small segment of history for myself in there.
But when it comes to the secession of the province and the people of the province of Quebec from Canada, I do not think in their best day right now -- I can say this with the thoughts that I have, despite their new Premier, the opposition, the fact that Mr Bourassa is probably deathly sick -- it was put to a test one other time when it seemed to be that it was inevitable, that the people of that province, realizing the parameters and the ramifications, have a real desire to separate from the rest of Canada.
Now you can have committees set up here that will listen to a lot of people and you could hear everything from a new voting system, which I would certainly support, to having a different kind of administration to the provinces and to Canada.
I was hoping that Mrs O'Neill would ask the question of more than one deputant: "How are those people going to be selected for office? How are they going to be put in?" That is the question. The only system we have that is democratic is to hold elections, but the elections are phoney and the elections are fixed and the elections are brought about by a gang of organized people who have learned how to get elected by this means. Then that system is something that has had its time and should go. That is one of the first things, to have a more democratic way, all things being equal, of having the proper representation of all the people of Canada and all the people of the province and down on the municipal level to end the cheating that has existed there for at least 20 years, on a higher ratio of the scale each year; it is to eliminate that.
There is the crux of the problem, where people show a discontent because they are being treated unfairly. That comes up almost every time something comes up where the elite, who have been mentioned here, are given their privilege over other people who are underestimated. I have seen talent, I have seen ability, I have seen people with creative capabilities almost beyond description, originating in Canada, go as fast as they could out of this country so that their talents could be used and exploited elsewhere, because of the cavalier treatment they get from the wise heads of the political elite of succession to positions of power in Canada in the different offices
It is a question of patronage and not a question of quality, and that in itself is one of the downfalls of Canada where it should be, and I think deep down inside it is, but it should be one of the greatest countries in the world. Somehow, because of the actions of people who should know better, it falls down sometimes to what I used to say was below the level of the banana republics.
I could illustrate the reasons for that, but I will not because it is total negativity and I think our topic is how we find ways to encourage our friends, our neighbouring province, to feel wanted and to feel that we are all one instead of the way they have been made to feel by manipulation of people whose position it is to exploit a situation for monetary gain and for political gain and just to make themselves feel big by doing it. That is, believe me, something that should never be allowed to exist for one minute.
I do not think that Quebec, the people of Quebec, really want to break away. I feel that maybe our aboriginal peoples were possibly overacting slightly in some of the things that were done because of the language of the Meech Lake accord, something that would make anybody angry when you try to portray a group of people as wanting something that the rest of the nation might not have. I think that was not brought out, as has been exhibited here, was not brought out truthfully but was brought out in a way as to ignite the incendiary flames that already existed in a touchy situation, so as to make it almost impossible for the transition of the united Canada at that time to come about.
Now whether it is too late or not, I am not going to attempt to say. I can say that it is up to the mentality and the capability of the people charged with the responsibility of portraying the situation as it really exists, rather than trying to go through a grotesque form of fiction and inventiveness of situations which may not and may never have really existed whatsoever.
I say that no more than you get people like Hussein to deter him from a path, you could not do that to people who have made up their mind. I suggest to you that is a very small minority of people who really want that. I think deep down underneath, most of the people in our neighbouring province do not want that, never did really want that and never will really want that even though they are being influenced by other people.
I would take some of the submissions that are going to be made here in the province of Ontario at face value and suggest to each one of you, charged with the responsibility of hearing them, to search down inside yourself and say to each one of you inside yourself: "What do I want? What do I want?"
I would even suggest that each one of you stand and report and tell, as a committee member charged with this important and most important of issues, how you feel about it, what your suggestions would be, as we are paying you for, and what you think should be done. That is everyone around this table and not a plebiscite in this fashion. People will come and you will glean from them ideas which you ultimately will use, from my experience, as your own. But you first show us your ability, your inventiveness, your ingenuity to put forth what you feel would be solutions. Then the rest of us, being your humble servants who elected you, will follow suit in that fashion.
If you have the capability to come forward with anything that does have the capabilities of bringing that about, I would be interested as your peer to hear it, rather than the other way around, inviting us to give you our suggestions, going forth -- most of us are not on grants and never were in our life -- unpaid, while you glean from that what you should do and then take maybe the best of it and put that forth as what you got.
If there is a committee struck to oversee this very important and most important crossroads in Canada's history, of the crossroads of one of our brothers or sisters succeeding, then you get your collective brains together and come up with a solution to us and publish it. I would suggest you do that before this committee goes from the province of Ontario elsewhere.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Amber. I think I can just say on behalf of the committee that certainly we recognize that our role, at the end of the process, is to come up with recommendations. I think we have been clear, however, and that has been part of our mandate, in wanting to hear from as wide a cross-section of people in the province as possible before we come up with recommendations about what we think the Legislature and the government should do. I think that is still the course we are set upon.
MrAmber: I understand that fully but what I am saying, Mr Chairman, is to put the people who are supposed to have the ability to come up with solutions, who are paid for that, who certainly budget a good deal of money towards that, for them to do it. That is what a committee does.
The Chair: I understand your point.
Mr Amber: Yes, but that is not what you said. You said at the end of it. I say to you for you to stand and report and each day have a submission in the media from everybody that is on this committee. Let's see, without using their helpers and their -- I do not know how many assistants they have and how many writers they have -- for each person to honestly put forward their collective suggestions as to prevent it and see if there are genuine people here who have the genuine ability to come up with genuine solutions on their own to merit being in the position of office that they have in my province of Ontario and in my Canada.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. That concludes the speakers for the afternoon session. We will recess at this point and come back at 7 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1735.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1910.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. This is the evening session of hearings in Toronto of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, for those people who may be following our proceedings over the parliamentary channel. We have heard a number of speakers this afternoon and this morning, and, of course, are proceeding with the list this evening of organizations and individuals.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: Before we get to the speakers, I indicated to the committee members earlier that we had a meeting of the subcommittee over the lunch break to deal with a couple of issues, particularly the list of speakers that we have for our next day in Toronto, which is on the 28th, the last day of the hearings. Members of the committee will recall that we had asked people to hold 1 March as a possible time, and we are going to recommend as a subcommittee that in fact we now use that. I will read out the report of the business subcommittee and at the end of that ask Mr Bisson if he would move adoption of that.
The business subcommittee met at 1:30 pm today to discuss the committee's schedule. It is being recommended that the committee meet on Friday 1 March from 9:30 to 12 noon and from 1:30 to 5 pm. It was agreed that the meetings on Thursday 28 February would be at Queen's Park from 9:30 am to 12 noon, 1:30 pm to 5 pm and 7 pm to 10 pm. In the evening the committee will divide -- or we are recommending it would divide -- into two sections in a town hall format to hear as many people as possible, and the committee would divide into two sections at the Friday meetings, if required. This, again, is our recommendation as a way to deal with the large numbers of people who are on the list to speak to us here in Toronto.
The subcommittee agreed that it will review a list of organizations requesting to appear in Toronto and will decide on the agenda. We are doing that tomorrow morning before we begin our hearings in Windsor. Then, for the meetings in Ottawa, the subcommittee again will be reviewing the list of speakers who have been submitted to date and making some recommendations or some decisions around the scheduling of those as well. We expect to do that tomorrow, because we again have a large number of speakers. We think that problem is easy to cope with in the time we have in Ottawa, but here in Toronto it is quite clear that we will need that additional day in order to even get close to dealing with the large numbers of people who have expressed an interest in talking to us.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Mr Chairman, would you repeat that very first part of the announcement?
The Chair: That we would meet on Friday 1 March. In addition to the times we have, we would add Friday 1 March from 9:30 to noon and from 1:30 to 5 pm.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Is that going to pre-empt that commitment we made with the multicultural council?
The Chair: No, that is scheduled for the morning of this coming Friday. I hope to have more details about that tomorrow morning.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Are you giving people in Toronto the impression that this will be the only opportunity? I think when we first began this we said there would be other opportunities for Toronto people or large organizations to speak to us, in that it is much easier when we are sitting to hear these people.
The Chair: The two days we will have back in Toronto would be 28 February and 1 March, if the committee agrees to our recommendation to add that day, so there would be those two additional days, and we already have a number of organizations and individuals who are on the list to speak to us, if we choose to go that route.
Mr Bisson: I would like to move the adoption of the minutes with regard to the meetings on 1 March.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE
DE L'ONTARIO
The Chair: We will resume with the list of speakers and call on Serge Jacob from ACFO. Bonsoir.
M. Jacob : Bonsoir. D'abord, dans un premier temps, j'aimerais remercier le comité de bien avoir voulu entendre le mémoire de l'ACFO de la communauté urbaine de Toronto. En même temps, si je parle trop vite pour les traducteurs il faudra me prévenir, parce que je sais comment ce travail est difficile.
Alors, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario/communauté urbaine de Toronto, aussi connue sous le nom d'ACFO-Toronto, existe depuis 1969. Nous travaillons à l'épanouissement des francophones de notre région en favorisant leur présence dans toutes les sphères d'activités. Bien entendu, nous le faisons dans un esprit ouvert tout en respectant le pluralisme ethnique et culturel de la communauté franco-torontoise.
Le Canada, il va sans dire, est à une étape délicate de son avenir. L'échec du Lac Meech, les disparités régionales et sociales, la crise autochtone, l'aliénation de l'Ouest, le mouvement souverainiste au Québec, tout cela remet en question l'existence même du Canada.
M. Rae a indiqué récemment qu'il s'attend à ce que l'Ontario redéfinisse sa place au sein de la Confédération. L'Ontario ne jouera peut-être plus son rôle traditionnel de chevalier servant de ladite Confédération.
Pour les francophones de l'Ontario, l'avenir qui se dessine à l'horizon doit comprendre certains paramètres. La constitution se doit de reconnaître les trois communautés nationales qui ont bâti le Canada, soit les communautés autochtones, francophone et anglophone. C'est la pierre angulaire d'une meilleure compréhension entre tous les Canadiennes et les Canadiens. On devrait réécrire les livres d'histoire pour refléter cette synergie ; nous sommes certains que cela serait source de tolérance.
Dans la même démarche s'inscrit le besoin de faire la promotion du rôle prépondérant que la communauté francophone a joué dans la découverte et le développement de l'Ontario depuis plus de 300 ans.
Maintenant, tournons notre attention vers les droits linguistiques. Nous préconisons le maintien du bilinguisme au sein des institutions fédérales. De même, les politiques linguistiques doivent tenir compte des droits, des intérêts et des besoins de la communauté autochtone.
Pour ce qui est de l'Ontario, il est essentiel que l'on déclare le français langue officielle et qu'on tienne compte des droits, des intérêts et des besoins de la même communauté autochtone.
Dans la même veine, parlons du droit à l'éducation. Les membres des trois communautés nationales ont droit à une éducation dans leur langue maternelle respective et cela dès l'âge de trois ans et jusqu'au postsecondaire. Ce droit doit être respecté dans les domaines suivants : services de garde, l'alphabétisation et la formation professionnelle. Les institutions résultant de ce droit sont gérées par chacune des trois communautés nationales.
Il est évidemment nécessaire que les textes de loi afférents à ce droit à l'éducation soient clairs et précis afin d'éviter d'être obligés d'avoir recours aux tribunaux pour faire respecter ce droit.
Passons maintenant à l'égalité des chances et le devoir des gouvernements de la promouvoir. La constitution canadienne doit reconnaître l'égalité des chances des trois communautés nationales. Elles doivent recevoir des services publics essentiels dans leur langue maternelle. Pour la communauté francophone, cela se traduirait en une gamme de services dans les secteurs scolaire, juridique, sociocommunautaire, de la santé puis aussi les services municipaux, sans oublier bien sûr le culturel et les communications.
Ceci doit être assorti de dispositions constitutionnelles qui engagent les gouvernements fédéral et provincial à faire la promotion de cette égalité grâce à des politiques et des programmes appropriés.
1920
Maintenant je vais vous parler de l'accès aux pouvoirs. Les communautés nationales doivent pouvoir gérer les structures politiques et administratives des services pertinents à leur épanouissement. Des mécanismes, des ententes et du financement doivent sous-tendre cet accès aux pouvoirs. Il est nécessaire que le statut d'égal de la communauté francophone se reflète dans l'organisation des pouvoirs et ce tant au palier fédéral, provincial que municipal. De plus, l'administration publique de la province de l'Ontario doit inclure davantage ces régions dans l'élaboration de ses politiques sociales, économiques et culturelles.
J'aimerais maintenant pouvoir passer au deuxième volet de notre présentation.
L'ACFO de la communauté urbaine de Toronto croit fermement que l'épanouissement de la société ontarienne est tributaire de son bien-être économique. Si l'Ontario est prospère nous pourrons, par l'entremise de politiques à caractère économique, atteindre un plus haut niveau de compréhension, de cohabitation, d'intégration raciale et de tolérance.
Nous nous devons d'élaborer des stratégies qui s'occuperont des vrais dossiers de notre société : la pauvreté des enfants, le sort des femmes chefs de famille, la violence conjugale, l'ignorance, la faillite de notre formation professionnelle, l'environnement, la vulnérabilité de nos villes monoindustrielles.
J'aimerais vous raconter une anecdote. J'ai des amis à Elliott Lake, et ces amis m'ont dit qu'ils pensent que le prochain Sault-Sainte-Marie sera Elliott Lake parce qu'on a fait 2000 mises à pied en septembre et que «rétrécissement économique» veut dire «baisse de la tolérance». Il y a aussi l'analphabétisme, une stratégie nationale en matière d'éducation, la récession, etc. Comme vous devez le savoir tous, le sort des francophones serait fortement amélioré si nous parvenions à régler tous ces dossiers.
Mais le cadre dans lequel nous allons trouver des solutions à tout cela est remis en question. Quelle forme va prendre notre pays ? L'Ontario devra se poser des questions. Est-ce que ce sera un pays composé d'une province des Maritimes, d'une province de l'Ouest, de la Colombie britannique, des territoires et d'un Québec autonome ? Cette redéfinition peut-elle être faite avec comme argument la péréquation ? L'Ontario veut peut-être récupérer certains pouvoirs de dépenser, par exemple, ou certaines juridictions.
Que penser de l'existence de ministères semblables, un provincial et un fédéral ? Nous n'avons plus les moyens de nous payer toute cette infrastructure administrative.
Qu'adviendra-t-il des programmes sociaux qui sont chers à plus d'un d'entre nous, et d'un gouvernement central, par exemple, qui ne peut pas faire preuve de rigueur budgétaire ? Je n'ai pas besoin de vous parler des 400 milliards de déficit du fédéral -- beaucoup de questions, je laisse les experts trouver des solutions. Un jour à Glendon, j'ai lancé une boutade à la fin d'une réunion -- qu'on devrait enfermer tous les experts en constitution, les verrouiller, leur donner de l'eau et du pain. Ils y régleront les problèmes de la constitution et pendant ce temps-là on pourra s'attaquer aux vrais problèmes, les enjeux dont je vous ai parlé plus tôt.
D'autre part, nous pensons que les francophones en Ontario peuvent faire leur part dans la diversification des relations commerciales de l'Ontario. Si nous pouvions axer une partie de nos relations commerciales vers la Francophonie, avec un grand «F», nos marchés d'exportation seraient plus diversifiés et même dépendants des États-Unis. Pour que les francophones de l'Ontario puissent faire leur part, ils ont besoin d'institutions, d'accès à l'éducation et à la formation, etc. Voilà, nous venons de boucler la boucle.
J'aimerais terminer avec ce qui d'après nous est le plus grand défi de l'Ontario, le développement d'une base commune de valeurs. L'Ontario ne semble pas avoir été capable de rallier sa société autour de valeurs communes à part l'ordre et la propreté.
Si depuis 1960 on avait mis de l'avant une base de valeurs qui aurait compris le rôle historique des francophones, leurs acquis grâce à la jurisprudence, à l'histoire, etc., on ne serait pas obligé d'expliquer que les francophones ne sont pas un groupe ethnique mais une des communautés nationales. On se souvient tous de Sault-Sainte-Marie, de la mauvaise réception de la Loi 8 sur les services en français et surtout le problème de marketing que cette Loi a eu.
D'ailleurs, cette Loi doit recevoir à nouveau un engagement ferme de la part du Conseil des ministres pour donner un signal clair et précis à la population, mais aussi à la fonction publique ontarienne responsable de la prestation des services en français.
Mesdames, messieurs, je vous remercie de votre attention. Si vous avez des questions, il me fera plaisir de vous répondre.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Jacob. Il y a quelques questions sans doute.
M. Bisson : Oui, une question très courte. Si je vous ai bien compris, vous dites dans votre mémoire que le gouvernement fédéral doit prendre le contrôle de certaines institutions, question de coûts. C'est ça que vous avez dit ? Je ne sais pas si j'ai bien compris si vous étiez en faveur de voir le gouvernement fédéral avec plus de pouvoir pour éviter la duplication des services provinciaux.
M. Jacob : Non, ce n'est pas l'intention du document. Tout simplement je passe l'observation qu'il existe tant au niveau provincial qu'au niveau fédéral des ministères qui sont, à notre sens, des duplications. On a un ministère de la Santé au fédéral, il y a un ministère de la Santé au provincial. Est-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas trouver des aménagements pour faire des économies, donc par conséquent dépenser l'argent où ça va faire le plus de bien ?
M. Bisson : Avez-vous des recommandations là-dessus ?
M. Jacob : Malheureusement, l'ACFO de la communauté urbaine de Toronto se voit très mal suggérer à des dirigeants et à des politiciens de prendre des décisions dans ce sens-là. Je pense qu'on peut remettre toutes les juridictions confondues tant au provincial qu'au fédéral dans le même blender et refaire une soupe où il va y avoir économie d'échelle, économie administrative. Je pense que c'est possible.
M. Villeneuve : Monsieur Jacob, vous avez mentionné, au sujet de l'enchâssement linguistique du français en Ontario vis-à-vis du projet de loi 8, que le projet de loi 8 avait été un pas, peut-être avec un manque de discussion, un manque d'explications. D'après vous, que voudrait dire l'enchâssement ou la déclaration de la province comme étant bilingue au-delà de ce que nous avons déjà avec la Loi 8 ?
M. Jacob : Écoutez, la Loi 8 est une loi héroïque, il n'y a pas de doute, et je pense que la communauté francophone en Ontario est très contente de cette Loi. Par contre, en Ontario on considère les francophones comme un groupe ethnique et c'est là le problème. Je pense que les livres d'histoire devraient être réécrits pour expliquer à la population qui vient de cent pays à travers le monde que, quand on vient en Ontario, il y a deux ou trois communautés nationales, qui sont les autochtones, les francophones et les anglophones.
Je pense que cela était un problème de société et je pense que, quand il y a des problèmes économiques, on dit : «Bon, mon frigidaire est vide mais on dépense de l'argent pour des services en français. On devrait peut-être dépenser de l'argent pour la relance de l'emploi ou des meilleurs programmes ou des choses comme ça». Je pense que sur la place publique en Ontario on n'a jamais considéré les francophones dans leur rôle historique et dans la jurisprudence de la présence, disons, des Franco-Ontariens.
M. Villeneuve : Un comité comme nous avons ce soir ici, aurions-nous pu, dès le début du projet de loi 8, nous engager ou expliquer ? C'est un couteau à deux tranchants. Nous avons eu une réaction négative qui réellement m'a inquiété énormément. D'après vous, est-ce qu'une meilleure explication à ce moment-là aurait pu apaiser ?
M. Jacob : Écoutez, je ne suis pas là pour faire le procès des décisions du gouvernement Peterson de l'époque. Évidemment, le recul nous donne toujours, disons : «Si on avait fait autrement, ça aurait peut-être donné une meilleure situation». Je vous réponds en politicien, je vous l'accorde. Je veux simplement dire que oui, effectivement, si on avait peut-être mieux expliqué la Loi 8, ce que ça voulait dire et comment on avait pensé à des façons, des mécanismes pour assurer la livraison des services, peut-être que la réaction aurait été moins viscérale. C'est très irrationnel ce qui s'est passé par rapport à la Loi 8.
M. Villeneuve : Le gouvernement du jour a souvent mentionné qu'il aimerait avoir un Ontario bilingue. Si par hasard ça se produisait, avec encore le même couteau à deux tranchants, de la même façon, pourriez-vous nous expliquer d'après vous comment il faudrait prévenir ? Parce que dans le moment, la crise constitutionnelle qu'on a, a été créée un petit peu dans ce genre-là parce qu'au Québec on a des problèmes. J'ai une circonscription qui longe les frontières du Québec et puis je peux vous dire que ça crée des problèmes énormes.
M. Jacob : Oui, mais je pense que l'homme de la rue est content d'être Canadien, tant qu'il soit Québécois ou Albertain. Le problème est qu'après Lac Meech, on a titré dans les journaux : «Le Canada anglais a dit non au Québec», ce qui est faux à mon sens. Le Canada anglais n'a pas dit non au Québec. Il y a eu certains individus qui ont dit non au Québec et je pense que c'est ça le problème. Par exemple, c'est qu'on n'a jamais parlé de génocide culturel en Ontario, qu'on n'a jamais parlé sur la place publique pour dire qu'il y a eu pendant 60 ans des politiciens qui ont pris des dispositions pour assimiler les Franco-Ontariens. Ça, ce ne s'est pas passé.
1930
M. Villeneuve : On en a parlé cet après-midi.
M. Jacob : Bon, on en a parlé cet après-midi. Je n'étais pas là cet après-midi, donc je ne peux pas savoir. Mais on n'a jamais parlé sur la place publique en Ontario du fait qu'on avait systématiquement décidé dans une cuisine que bon, les Franco-Ontariens, on allait les assimiler parce qu'ils ne seraient pas capables d'aller à l'école, et puis effectivement ils allaient rentrer dans les rangs et puis ils allaient tous devenir des anglophones.
Malheureusement, ils ont oublié ce que c'était, les Acadiens ou les Canadiens français, comment on était coriaces. Donc, en 1986 le gouvernement Peterson a fait preuve d'un mea culpa historique, mais on a mal expliqué le mea culpa historique. On ne s'est pas penché sur -- comment expliquer -- mais vous savez, le traitement des Franco-Ontariens, c'est comme les Arméniens, c'est comme les Kurdes en Iraq, etc. On a peur des mots, vous savez. On est une société où l'ordre et la propreté sont des valeurs que tout le monde a épousées. Est-ce que c'est bien, c'est pas bien ? Bon, on est en 1991, la situation politique va très mal et je pense qu'il faut commencer à avoir des discussions qui sont très franches.
M. Villeneuve : Monsieur Jacob, vous êtes un bon politicien.
Mr Offer: I have two short questions. In your presentation you have alluded on more than one occasion to the fact that the Constitution must recommend basically three groups: the francophones, the anglophones and native persons. Certainly we have heard that those three groups should be recognized, but we have also heard on a number of occasions that it should not just be limited to three groups, but rather it should also recognize the multicultural aspect of Canada. My question is if you can share with us your opinion on that one particular aspect.
My second question deals with the whole question of Franco-Ontarian rights. In the event that Quebec separated, or something less than but not the status quo, could you share with us what you see as the impact on Franco-Ontarian rights in this province as a result of that type of movement?
Mr Jacob: The school is called Jeanne-Lajoie. There are 50 nationalities in the school. I think multiculturalism in the Franco-Toronto society is a fact. We have within our own ACFO somebody from Zaire, someone from la Côte-d'Ivoire. We have people from France, people from Quebec. We have a mixture of people. Multiculturalism is obviously something that is very apparent in Toronto, and I think why it has worked until now is because Toronto is a rich town and therefore there is money, so therefore there is tolerance and therefore people can cohabitate with one another.
Franco-Ontarians in the Ottawa region and in Toronto have been working with multicultural groups for a very long time. There are many organizations, whether it is les Français à l'étranger, or le Magreb, or le Cercle des Égyptiens-Canadiens or a series of groups, for example, which use le Conseil des organismes francophones du Toronto Métropolitain and things like that. That is why I talk about francophones. In the school elections next fall, for example, we hope some people who have French as one of their official languages identify themselves as francophones, because they feel closer to the French culture than to the English culture, whether because they grow up in North Africa or in Africa or in Vietnam, just to name a few, or they could be Cajuns or Acadians or whatever.
French multiculturalism is something that exists and is here to stay, and we are more than happy to work on ethnocultural relations. There is this Friday a meeting about racial integration, ethnocultural relations. We are working très fort at trying to find the solution of cohabitation and integration and things like that. What is interesting for Toronto is that the community is so much smaller that you will go to different things, whether it is a literacy group or a party or a dance or a concert or whatever, and will encounter people from many countries. I think that kind of integration is happening and is part of our daily life.
On your second question, for a very long time Quebec said to Ontario, "We can't say anything about how you treat your minority because minority treatment is a provincial jurisdiction." I am not either a history expert or a constitutional expert, but if treatment of minorities is a provincial jurisdiction, if Quebec left Canada there would still be a half million to I million, depending which sources you consult, who have French as an official language in Ontario.
People who have grown up, whose families have been in Timmins or in Elliot Lake or Cochrane for 120 years -- Ontario is their home. It is not like they are going to pack up their bags and cross the river and go home or something like that. That would be such an aberration, to think that because Quebec left Canada, when -- La Devoir just published un sondage -- Quebeckers in their heart are still willing to consider giving another chance to Canada.
It is an interesting phenomenon. I would think that Franco-Ontarians are here to stay. They have been here for 350 years. Joan-Baptiste Rousseau is the first citizen of Toronto. He was there when Lord Simcoe arrived on the boat, which has been more or less occulté from history books. There is a Joan-Baptiste Rousseau project in Toronto which la Société d'histoire de Toronto is working on which is an amalgamation of all sorts of history projects; also, English historical societies are working on the Jean-Baptiste Rousseau project.
We are here to stay, and therefore Ontario will still have to reckon with its minority treatment and with a historical legacy. Some of that historical legacy is not very savory -- 60 years of an attempt to assimilate Franco-Ontarians. Since 1968 Ontario has done l'étapisme, step by step, and I think it has proven there is a vitality in the Franco-Ontarian population. There was a report published on small business enterprises, which is very much the favourite of Franco-Ontanians. In Ontario you just have to look at the economic vitality of Hearst, which opened a community radio, found solutions to diversify its mineral-industrial bases, etc. I do not think that if Quebec chooses to exit Canada Franco-Ontarians would leave.
Second, you have to remember that in front of the Bélanger-Campeau commission, Jean Tanguay, who is the general president of l'ACFO provinciale, which is the umbrella organization that regroups 43 organizations in Ontario, said: "Whatever Quebec chooses, we are here to tell Quebeckers that we will be partners. We know the way of English-speaking Ontarians or of Ontario society and we can help you as diplomats or intermédiaires or whatever you want to call them." Does that answer your question?
M. le Président : Merci, M. Jacob.
1940
NATIONAL CONGRESS
OF FILIPINO CANADIAN ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: I call Mel Catre, from the National Congress of Filipino Canadian Associations.
Mr Catre: Good evening. My name is Mel Catre, representing the National Congress of Filipino Canadian Associations. Permit me to give you a short background of our association. The NCFCA is an umbrella organization composed of over 30 associations, most of which are based in Ontario. It was incorporated as a non-profit association in 1981. Since then, our association has been involved in an advocacy role as an action group. The latest participation of our association was on the issue of access to professions and trades in Ontario. May I quickly mention that the community is awaiting action on that report submitted by chairman Peter Cumming last year. Nothing has been done so far; we hope to see some concrete action soon.
We deeply appreciate this opportunity to appear before you tonight. Most important, when we are at the crossroads of planning the future of Canada, this gesture reassures the belief of the multicultural communities that we are indeed part of the new fabric of Canada. We are new Canadians in a new Ontario, participating in a new beginning. History tells us that in 1967, immigrant landings in Ontario were from England, Italy, USA, Scotland and Germany. Twenty years later, in 1987, immigrants were coming from Hong Kong, Guyana, Portugal, India and Jamaica, in that order. Yes, a different but a stronger Ontario.
Against this background is our long history of Confederation since 1867. The recognition of the multicultural society in Canada came only recently. In 1982, we were excited to see this recognition expressed in section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provides, "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada."
This was followed by the enactment of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. But what happened after is not a pretty picture. Funding for agencies along this line was cut to almost extinction. The provinces, which were supposed to support this enactment, did almost nothing to supplement this venture. Ontario is not an exception. Out of more than 1.8 million immigrants to Canada from 1966 to 1986, over 50% settled in Ontario. Yet today Ontario does not have a ministry of multiculturalism, there is no act specifically creating this particular ministry. The Ontario government declared a policy in 1987 that states, "The government will actively seek out the ideas, visions and concerns of individuals and cultural communities." This is a good start. We understand there is a staff working on multiculturalism under the Ministry of Citizenship. We suggest your committee look into this matter and try to put more action than words. We look at Ontario as a multicultural, multilingual and multiracial province. It needs a multiculturalism ministry.
The people of Ontario as well as the rest of Canada are now engaged in an issue: Canadian unity. Ontario should play a vital role. Concerns in the area of decentralization of some federal powers -- environment, health, education, equal opportunities, economy and especially unemployment -- always hit Ontanians the most. For example, the number of unemployed in Ontario has increased by 77,000 people since last September, according to Statistics Canada.
We are witness to the deep divisions and emotional debates on Quebec separation. We have seen the failure of the Meech Lake accord, the Oka conflagration, the burning of flags, etc. We have seen our Prime Minister warning les québécois about the dream merchants, and the defensive posture of Parizeau passing the buck or the burden of proof to Canada to prove to them that Quebec's independence is bad for Canada and Quebec. Your committee, I am sure, must have heard numerous presentations on this subject. We hope the consensus is that Quebec should stay in Confederation.
There are more serious questions than answers in the air right now. Some of them are:
With whom will Quebec negotiate for independence? Legal luminaries are of the opinion that the federal government has neither the authority nor the mandate to negotiate. Can the provinces grant the federal government mandate to negotiate? Note that the current composition of the Parliament is composed of 25% from Quebec. In the event that sovereignty is unilaterally declared by Quebec, who will negotiate with Quebec? Would it be Parliament minus the Quebec MPs and senators? Are these legal?
Can Quebec survive economically, considering that 53% of Quebec's exports are to the rest of Canada? Will an independent nation of 6.7 million people survive in this era of globalization? Europe is on the move to federalism and the European economic council is gaining momentum. USA, Canada and Mexico are unifying free trade agreements, while Japan is unofficially controlling the Asian and Pacific Rim, and now Quebec wants to be on its own.
What are the territorial borders of Quebec? The aboriginal peoples' claims are still a big question.
How will you divide current Canadian assets and foreign debts? This and many more questions exist.
There are proponents who say, "Let Quebec go." Some quarters fear the loss of Quebec is not good for Ontario, while some believe otherwise. We happen to believe that Canada without Quebec is not the same Canada we know, and Quebec without Canada is not the same Quebec the world knows. It is inevitable that Ontario will deal and negotiate soon. We are confident that Ontario will never negotiate out of fear and will never fear to negotiate.
Ladies and gentlemen, when we came to Canada, our concept of Canada was one of a peaceful country, rich in cultural heritage, that the anglophones, francophones, aboriginal people and people from different countries of the world live in peace and harmony in this country. We are Canadians by choice.
On a personal note, I have been in Canada for almost 20 years. I would say these years I have spent here were beautiful and inspiring. It is like a dream, and the Canada of tomorrow a vision. For those Canadians who have not seen people dying of hunger, political persecution and tortures in the Third World, life in Canada would look different from their perspective. But for us, who came from these countries, Canada today is well lived, and therefore every yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope.
On the subject of the French language, we believe that learning French is beneficial to all of us, and for the new Canadians who came to this country whose mother tongue is neither English nor French, learning both languages is exciting.
Avec votre permission, j'aimerais essayer de parler en français pour démontrer notre désir d'apprendre cette langue officielle au Canada. En démontrant que nous respectons l'héritage historique du Canada basé sur l'anglais et le français, nous espérons que le Canada d'aujourd'hui respectera aussi notre héritage culturel et nos coutumes et pratiques religieuses. Le Canada d'aujourd'hui et de demain est fondamentalement différent du Canada que nous avons connu hier. Nous sommes Canadiens aussi. Notre constitution doit fournir cette garantie aux enfants de nos enfants.
Thank you very much. I would like to take some questions.
1950
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. On page 3 you said that when you came to Canada, the concept of Canada was of a "peaceful country, rich in cultural heritage, that the anglophones, francophones, aboriginal people and people from different countries of the world live in peace and harmony in this country." I think in those four lines in your presentation you have summed up a great spirit, a feeling of what the country is to so many people, not only within but outside the country.
But as you know at this point in time there is a continuing discussion about Quebec's place in Canada, about the possibility of a different form of Confederation, if not potential, total separation. I am wondering if you might share with us -- I know you have some great experience in this matter -- how you see that type of activity impacting on the multicultural fabric of this province, whether it might detract from some of the things which we have held so dear to all of us.
Mr Catre: I would like to base my answer on the perspective from our association and I think most of the thinking of the association members. It is that the problem that we have today in Canada is a great problem because it is a problem of unity, and our concept will not change no matter what will happen. If Quebec leaves, for example, in either form, whether it is Confederation or sovereignty-association or an independent Quebec, the concept will not change. We will just be disappointed that Canadians would let Quebec go and not put up a fight to let them stay in the family, because as I said the powers of Canada -- in the outside world it is so beautiful and it is so strong with Quebec, and without Quebec I do not know the concept. I would not venture as to the concept by which the other worlds and other people from other countries would see Canada by then.
Lot me just backtrack to 1970 where we had this problem when martial law was declared here. I was not here yet. We read about it and it was not shocking at the time. We know that martial law was declared in the country we came from, not at the same time; three years apart. But the powers declared at a time, based on separation, based on ideological conflict, were dangerous and did not portray a good image for Canada for people who are in different parts of the world.
It is our hope that we would struggle hard to keep Quebec in Confederation, maybe not in the same form, but in a form that everyone can live with.
Mr Bisson: You talk, as many other people have talked before this committee, yourself as an immigrant to this country, about the vision of how you saw this country before coming, as being a tolerant country. We heard people say again today before committee, and in past times as well, that one of the strengths they thought of this country was the image we portray as being a tolerant society.
We hear some people within our country talking about, "No, we have to be the same and we cannot be tolerant of other people, of the multicultural aspect of this country, the francophones," etc. What do you think can be done to try to get the people to understand what this issue is really all about in regard to what tolerance brings?
Mr Catre: Those are very good questions because as I said in my speech and deliberation, really the official recognition of a campaign from the government, officially recognizing the multicultural fabric of Canada and composition, not just francophones but people from other countries, only just came in in 1988 with the multiculturalism act. That is not really far from 1991 or 1990.
It is a good beginning. We do not have any argument with that. It is just a question that now we have a basis. We have a law that can be enriched. Before that, there was nothing at all, nothing in the BNA. The Charter of Rights was only enshrined in 1982. But from 1867 to 1982 is a long way. So during that lull of time, there was really nothing that officially would say we were going to work along this line with multicultural, multilingual people in Canada.
It is a good start from this time on to band together, probably reinforcing those enactments with other forms of support by way of campaign, by way of outreaching and networking with people, not just the immigrants but the francophones and the aboriginal people who are here in Canada. I think there should be networking and more funding to the agencies too, to send the message to the grass-roots level that we are indeed multicultural.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much, sir, for your presentation. I come from a riding that is along the Ontario-Quebec border in southeastern Ontario. You have explained some of the real difficulties that would be inherent should ever -- heaven forbid -- the province of Quebec secede from Confederation.
You have chosen Canada as a place where you want to live and raise your family. You have explained many of the negatives here. Then you have come on and explained why maybe we should try to keep it together. Coming from the Philippines, as you do, I gather -- and by the way, how many languages do you speak in that country?
Mr Catre: Two: English and Spanish.
Mr Villeneuve: English and Spanish. I have had occasion to go to Europe and a number of countries that have two, three and four languages.
Mr Catre: I guess Philippine is the third language -- Tagalog.
Mr Villeneuve: You have explained some of the problems as you foresee them and attempted to cover some of the positives as you finished up your summation. You have not said whether those problems are insurmountable, and again I come from that area where French and English get along quite well together, where you cheer for the Canadiens or the Maple Leafs, and I know there are now a lot more than that. That has been healthy to this point.
All of sudden, for some reason, for some of the things that have happened in Quebec, again in reaction, along the Ontario-Quebec border -- there are some irritations and they may look and sound major to some people. For example, you cannot go into Quebec to work in a job that is unionized. But I understand that is general throughout the province of Quebec and people do not understand that. They seem to think they are being discriminated against because they happen to be from Ontario. That is not quite the case, but it certainly seems that way and I cannot explain it.
How do you, as one who has chosen Canada, feel about the problems as you have outlined them? Can we surmount them and keep this country together?
Mr Catre: Very good question. I am a positive person and I think categorically I could say we can surmount them. The problems that I have illustrated in my presentation, as you observed, are really deep. A lot of people could not understand the rationale behind the behaviour of the people right now on both sides. It is because it has gone from a logical point of view to an emotional point of view.
Mr Villeneuve: Exactly.
Mr Catre: There is no logic in emotion. I think based on that, if we could just tone down the emotion and get into our rightful, logical thinking, we could climb mountains and we could solve the problems.
Mr Villeneuve: Roll up our sleeves and make it happen.
Mr Catre: I think we can.
2000
JOHN MELIN, ROBERT GREENHILL,
PATRICK PICHETTE AND MARTIN LEBLANC
The Chair: I call next a group of five people: Robert Greenhill, Patrick Pichette, Leah Taylor, Martin LeBlanc and John Melin. We need another chair, I think.
Mr Melin: That is fine. Leah Taylor will not be able to be with us this evening, so there are only four of us.
The Chair: All right. Just for the record, if you are each going to speak, perhaps you would identify yourselves as you go through, just so we know who is who.
Mr Melin: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to let us speak here. We are a group of five friends who work together. We come from across the country. In fact only one of us is a native Ontarian. We all share a very strong belief in a functioning, unified Canada and we are also very concerned about the challenges facing Canada. I guess we feel confident in portraying ourselves as concerned Canadians.
I will just take a moment to introduce ourselves. Martin LeBlanc is an Acadian from New Brunswick. Robert Greenhill is a western Canadian currently living in Toronto. Patrick Pichette is a Québécois from Montreal, and I am John Melin and I am from Saskatchewan.
As I said, we share a strong belief in Canada. We believe in a prosperous, multicultural Canada, a Canada within which individuals are given considerable freedom and support to develop and live fully. We believe in a Canada within which cultural groups are given the opportunity to preserve their cultural identities, and we believe in a Canada in which those individuals and those communities have social and economic rights, and social and economic obligations.
We got together and we talked and we debated and talked and debated. We talked through a muddle of issues which are bundled together in the debate over Canada's future, and there were really two groups of issues which jumped out. There were emotion-based issues and there were substantive issues, both of which we think are equally important.
Now first, I will speak very briefly about the emotion-based issues. There have been a lot of perceived insults in Canada. Quebec perceives an insult over Meech, francophones throughout Canada perceive an insult over the unfulfilled 1970s promise of bilingualism, and many English Canadians perceive insults, as well, over concerns and demands expressed by French-speaking Canadians or Quebec, and there have also been a lot of inflammatory reactions.
These emotions are important, but we have to understand, when emotions drive issues, to try and channel that emotion positively and not make statements or claims calculated to irritate. Also, the emotional issues are related to the substantive issues. We need to look at the principles to resolve the substantive issues. We feel we should not get entrenched in positions because of the emotional issues.
There are real substantive issues which must be resolved for Canada to continue as a robust, Canadian nation. To do this, we think Canadians must think in terms of really building mechanisms to support the Canada we believe in. In essence we need to got the process right. We need to reassert Canada's strength as a nation. Throughout our talk, there will be two messages that we will give you about the process.
We believe, first, that it is important to focus on the vision and then worry about the best institutions. Incremental bargaining is zero sum. We need to consider the determining factors of Canada: the Canadian peoples, the Canadian geography, the Canadian values, and then resolve a vision of Canada, and then finally design the institutions and structure to serve the vision.
The second message is very simple. It is an extension of the first. Structure is not the solution. The solution will likely fit with a number of different structures.
Our presentation has three parts. First, Martin will speak about why we believe Canada is strong, worth preserving, worth strengthening. Second, Robert will speak about what we consider the challenges to be, and finally, Patrick will speak about how we think Canada should meet those challenges in order to continue to be the country that we as Canadians -- and we believe most Canadians -- respect and admire and would like to see continue.
M. LeBlanc : Distingués membres du comité, je m'appelle Martin LeBlanc. Je suis un Acadien originaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. Je vais vous adresser la parole d'abord dans ma langue maternelle qui est le français, pour ensuite terminer mes propos en anglais.
J'aimerais vous proposer, dans les quelques minutes qui me sont permises, les raisons pour lesquelles notre groupe croit en les richesses et les valeurs et l'énorme potentiel que possède le Canada tel qu'il a existé et tel qu'il devrait exister à l'avenir. Nous estimons que le Canada possède des richesses naturelles, culturelles et économiques qui font de ce pays l'envie do la plupart des pays du monde.
Les richesses naturelles : nous savons tous quo ce vaste pays possède un potentiel énorme en matière de ressources naturelles. Nous sommes un peuple qui sait vivre en unisson avec la nature et la protéger et nous devrions en bénéficier. En tant que gardiens du Nord et de cette vaste nature, les Canadiens ont aussi devant eux un privilège, mais également une responsabilité et aussi un grand défi.
Les richesses culturelles : le Canada est multiculturel par définition, un pays où des peuples de partout au monde sont venus et continuent de venir pour réaliser leurs rêves. Nous sommes un pays où la volonté de maintenir des traditions culturelles est un fait marquant de notre société. Le multiculturalisme est un fait canadien et non un fait anticanadien. Nous bénéficions tous de ce riche mélange de cultures.
En matière de richesses économiques : le Canada possède un des niveaux de vie et de bien-être les plus élevés au monde, même parmi les pays de l'Occident. Nous possédons aussi une des mains-d'oeuvre les mieux éduquées et formées au monde.
We also believe that the natural cultural and economic riches that I have just mentioned provide the basis for and have led to a set of shared beliefs and values that we all share as Canadians.
First, we can say that respect for the individual is a shared belief of Canadians. Each Canadian has the freedom to live and prosper in a liberal society. Each Canadian citizen also has social and economic rights. We believe that those rights are also counterbalanced by social and economic obligations, which leads us to a second set of shared beliefs, which is respect for others.
We believe in the basic belief of equality of opportunity, that Canada has strong social programs to ensure that every Canadian has a minimum standard of living and the ability to prosper. This is evidenced in our education and health programs. Embedded in this respect for others is the respect for cultural and linguistic minorities. Our pluralist society aims to provide equality of opportunity to all cultural minorities as well.
This respect for others is also seen in the political tolerance that is shared by all Canadians, or most Canadians. There is in Canada a strong basis for the respect of minorities. The fact that there is no clear cultural majority across all regions provides counterbalances which ensure that minorities can prosper. Finally, Canadians also share a view of the role of government as a facilitating agent, not as an instrument of ethnic or regional oppression.
We see Canadians as sharing a respect for nature, as well as custodians of the greatest wilderness in the world, where our people live together with nature and with respect for the natural environment.
Our group feels that Canada's riches and the common belief that its people have, have led to a vibrant, strong country, which has the respect of the world community. For a country of 25 million inhabitants, we have achieved considerable stature in the international community. We are a part of the group of seven in industrial powers. We also are one of the dominant countries within the Commonwealth and a prominent figure within the United Nations.
To conclude, our group feels strongly that Canada's riches, values and beliefs make this country unconstrained in its potential and it now seems a matter for Canada to invest in these riches and build on those strengths. Robert?
Mr Greenhill: I am Robert Greenhill. A country that is vibrant, a country that is growing is a living thing and like all living things, we believe, it goes through stages of change. These stages of change are necessary, are part of growing, but are not always easy and are often not pleasant. It is our belief that we are going through a stage of change right now and we are doing that in response to four challenges.
First, the fundamental challenge is that Canada today is very different in many ways from the Canada of 50 years ago. Second, there are a number of economic challenges facing Canada which we have not yet, as a people, overcome. Third, there is the challenge of addressing the growing sense of alienation, most strongly expressed in Quebec but felt elsewhere through this country. Fourth, there is the challenge of restoring a national sense of vision, lacking right now, at least partly due to a lack of national leadership.
Dealing first with the fact that Canada, we believe, is very different today than it was 50 years ago, first, culturally we are much more diverse. Fifty years ago a majority of the people were of British descent and a majority of the rest were French. Almost all shared European traditions and beliefs. Today that is not the case. We are more diverse. We have more cultures from many different parts of the world. Today there is a greater need for explicit steps to build a homogeneity of basic shared beliefs within this diversity of cultural backgrounds in a way that was not necessary 50 years ago.
Another way in which we are a very different country than we were 50 years ago is in the political balance of power. The regions are stronger and they are more autonomous, whether due to educational and social changes, such as the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, or due to political and economic changes, such as estate building under the Lougheed government in Alberta. The change in the political balance of power is one of these challenges within the changed Canada.
2010
In addition to these challenges of a changed Canada, we face, due in part to changes internationally, an economic challenge. Our international competitiveness is in serious question. Due to duplicity and bureaucracy in everything from environmental regulations to drivers' licences, we have higher costs and low responsiveness in addressing international competitors.
At the same time, provincial trade barriers continue to close doors east-west when they are being opened north-south. Compounding the economic challenge is the fact that our basic economic structure is undergoing fundamental change. Commodities on which we depended for much of our richness for much of our time as a nation are continuing to decline in real terms. They have for many years and are likely to again in the future.
At the same time, the industrial base that we have developed, particularly in Ontario, is under siege, due in part to the industrialization of low-cost developing countries, due in part to the amazing competitiveness of countries such as Japan, due in part to the free trade agreement and as of yet our poor and uncoordinated national response to it.
Compounding the challenges of our country being different and our economic challenges, we have the challenge of dealing with the increasing sense of alienation across this country, some inherited from past problems, some made greater by the social and economic changes of the last 10 or 20 years. We believe this is most strongly felt and most immediately in need of being addressed in Quebec, but also in the west there is a sense of being economically and politically marginalized, and the aboriginal people, resurging in their sense of self, are growing increasingly discontented with the status quo.
On top of those, and perhaps most important of the challenges facing us, is the challenge of a lack of vision. Our vision of ourselves as a country seems temporarily out of focus. We have a collective sense of what it is we are, but it is blurry. We believe the greatest reason for this may be in fact the failure in national leadership. Those who are supposed to be the vocalizers and magnifiers of our national vision are blinded by political incrementalism and zero-sum regional competition. Indeed, it is ironic that the last attempt at building a national vision was done by those who, by the nature of their jobs as representatives of provinces, are myopic in their view of a greater Canada.
I have talked about some of the challenges facing and testing us as a nation, but we also have, we believe, great opportunities. In our view, in the new peoples are new strengths, and in stronger regions there is a greater ability to care for our citizens from sea to sea. The economic and political challenges are here to prove or break us. If we succeed, we come out stronger. Just like when other living things go through stages of change, it is to grow.
Out of the crisis caused by the lack of vision and the absence of leaders may come new visions and new leaders, sensing and responding to and articulating a new and stronger Canada. These challenges are great, but so is this country and so are the strengths of its people. We can overcome these challenges; the only question is how, the question that Patrick will now, in part, try to address.
M. Pichette : Patrick Pichette, Montréalais d'origine. Je vais adresser le comité en anglais pour faciliter la discussion.
Now that we have heard about what we think is the situation and the issues concerning Canada, I am going to address what we think is the way to a resolution, or a potential resolution. What ensures the viability of a country or a national entity to us is the agreement among its members about its common beliefs. These beliefs can be either a set of current shared values or even aspirations of future goals that bind them.
We believe that a Canadian national identity can only survive if there exists a vision to support it. A national vision is critical. First, it clearly identifies the Canadian goals worth striving for. These are economic, social and cultural. Second, a vision provides the government with the focus and legitimacy to develop the necessary structures and institutions to promote the vision and to serve the people of Canada.
Defining a national vision is not an easy task. In order to do this we need to thoroughly understand the determining factors of the country, for example, the country's cultural heritage in terms of ethnicity, mythology, regional mix, climate, geography, etc, but most important in defining a vision we need leadership. Only through leadership can the vision take form.
The national leaders have a responsibility to build a vision and shape government structures and the institutions to serve it. They must work at strengthening these structures and institutions, and stay away from the rest. But structure, as my colleague just told you, is not the solution to the current problems and strains. The solution is in the design of the right institutions and structures to serve the vision.
For example, a structure that serves the vision of Canada is transfer payments. In the United States, they do not have transfer payments as we have them in Canada and you just have to go to Mississippi and compare it to New Jersey or Vermont and you will see what transfer payments do. On the other hand, there are structures that are constricting in Canada. Why do I need 10 driver's licences because I am in 10 different provinces? If I am a worker in Canada, I should be able to move freely around without any of these constraints.
The institutions that serve Canada, the CBC and Katimavik -- Katimavik is now not a program any more, but it was a program in Canada. I served on Katimavik. I have travelled through the country as youth and served in different communities and lived with 10 people from totally different parts of Canada and totally different backgrounds. These to us are institutions, not structures, that help Canadians understand what it is to be a Canadian, what it is to live in different parts of Canada; and the CBC, with its mandate of giving Canadians the news of Canada and the feeling that there is a place in New Brunswick that you can relate to when you listen to the news.
Structures that do not serve the vision well, we believe, are things such as interprovincial trade barriers. As Robert commented, if we have doors opening north-south, it would be illogical on a trade basis to have our high barriers in Canada as we have them today.
Also, structures that we think do not serve the mission are things such as language rights over immigration. We do believe this is something that is important, to respect and reflect the regional communities. Therefore, if you are an immigrant coming to Alberta, you should have to respect and reflect the regional communities, and the same thing would apply to Quebec.
Now that I have talked about the structure and the vision, I would like to summarize the points in the following way. We believe that national identity resides in what the people work at and work towards. Because of this, a national vision is necessary. We believe the Canadian identity is something alive. It is strong and worth developing. We believe the federal government as an institution and its leader have a crucial role to play in redefining our national vision. The Trudeau vision of Canada, designed during the 1960s for the 1960s, is simply inadequate for the country and a country that is now tackling the challenges of the 1990s. The only way we can find a solution is to concentrate first on the Canadian determining factors and the Canadian vision, and only when this is done should we look at designing institutions to serve the vision.
It is through this process that we can ensure a Canada in which Canadians are able to prosper, preserve their cultural identities and yet share and contribute to a strong Canada. By doing this, I think Canada may in fact act as a leader and a role model in the international community.
John is going to pass around sort of a schematic approach to what we have been discussing. It will illustrate what we have talked about -- determining factors, the idea of a mission and how the leadership is crucial to it and how all of these influence the structures and institutions.
I would like to thank the members of the committee. If you have any questions, just ask them.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think I speak on behalf of the committee in saying that we have had other group presentations before. We had a group of students talk to us at another location, but it is the first time that a group of people, as you have said, who work together have just come together and talked about some of these issues and have proceeded to put together a presentation like this. Thanks very much. We appreciate that.
There are a couple of questions. First, Mr Beer.
Mr Beer: Thank you for your presentation. One of the questions that has been brought before us is the sense of how much time we have to try to resolve a number of questions, including developing a vision that everybody could buy into. You are all from different parts of the country and I am sure, through family and friends, are in touch with what is happening there. What is your sense of the time we have here? I do not want to just put the onus on Quebec, but more broadly. How much time do you think we have, or is that a false problem and we should not be worried about that? It just seems to me that what you are putting forward would need some time to articulate the kind of vision that you think we need to have. I put that to anybody and everybody.
2020
Mr Pichette: I think I would like to answer this question in talking again about this idea of structure and vision. If you told Canadians tomorrow morning that we recognized that structure is not the way to go at it, I think they would give you time -- I think in most cases, if Quebec was told and if a lot of people were told. Okay? Obviously Meech did not work and we attacked it from a structural point of view and this is a perfect example where it illustrates the fact that it does not work.
Now, what we need to do is not rush into more structures, which are most of the attempts on Quebec in a lot of ways; to look at a structural way to solve its problems. As I say, let's sit back, because there is no reason to rush into this. Let's sit back and think about it and look at what the real issues are, what the real vision is. If in fact, once you have sat back and you have recognized that your vision is totally incompatible with the one of the rest of Canada, then you would have a point to say go ahead. But at least I think if you present it in this fashion, to my sense anyway, people would give you the time to think about it.
Mr Beer: It becomes very critical then for us to identify the values, for example, that we would see that we share as Canadians as part of that vision. That is one of the questions we have in our background paper. So you would really stress that aspect of it far more than the division of powers and those structural issues.
Mr Pichette: Yes, I think so. We can discuss it in a lot of detail, so basically we believe as a group that the economic rationales for having a united Canada, especially with the trade barriers as we know them today, are fairly weak. There are good reasons, for example, to be in the group of seven, the G-7. There are huge advantages being in as a country, but within Canada and within the North American context I think it is not enough to say, "We can survive independently," and all this. I think we have to go back and look in fact much more at what is the common denominator underlying all the Canadian identity and from there work bottom up.
Mr Greenhill: If I can build on Patrick's point, we may only have two years, we may only have four years. We will not know until after the fact whether we have succeeded or failed. But if you only had two years or only four years, better to spend that time determining whether or not you have a fundamental set of beliefs that you believe in across this country rather than debating who should have inland fisheries and who should have communications.
Our sense is that right now the debate being caught on divisions of power and structure has become a very zero-sum one. It appears that one group can only gain if another group loses, whereas if you work together to try to define and articulate a shared vision of Canada and then adjust your structure to reflect that, you have a much more positive type of environment, a much more positive atmosphere within which you are negotiating the changes in our institutions.
The other point too is if in fact you are put against the wall very quickly on structural changes, we actually think a much more decentralized Canada could succeed if the shared values are there, and institutional support outside of structures such as CBC, such as Katimavik, such as immersion programs, such as the different programs at the government level whereby students go across the country during the summer or at the corporate level whereby the hotels in Alberta tend to hire people from Quebec and Ontario and vice versa. As long as those are there reflecting a shared vision, the structure can be much more decentralized and you can succeed.
On the other hand, you could have a structure that is much more centralized and it could fail if it does not reflect the shared vision; hence our sense that to a certain extent a lot of the debate has been focused on the wrong things, particularly given the short time we have.
Mr LeBlanc: If I could just continue on that, I think one way of buying perhaps a bit more time is to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric that we have seen and the antagonism between the various regions. I think that is where an Ontario or a government has a role to play in ensuring that when something like the Allaire report comes out or other things that are being tabled come out, we see this in an objective way and we keep our objectives focused on this thing and do not get caught up in inflammatory rhetoric.
Mr Bisson: First of all, I want to say thank you for taking the time, getting together and carrying on that long tradition of Canadian institution called debate and sitting down and discussing the direction this country or whatever issue should go. I just think I would like to touch on what you said; then I will come to the question.
One of the big problems we have now is that in the past there have never been time lines on issues such as this, and all of a sudden artificial time lines have been put on, for the past number of years, and God only knows where that comes from. I do not see that as being a Canadian tradition. Our tradition has always been open-endedness when it comes to discussing this because we have always been a country that is evolving and changing with the times.
You speak of vision and I think you are right. We do have to have some vision of where we want to go and try to work towards it. Can you share with us what your vision is, if you have one? What do you see as part of the obstruction from getting us there?
Mr Pichette: I would like to start. I cannot tell you all the things that are in my vision of Canada. I will speak as an individual now. But one of them that I certainly do feel is there are two critical aspects to Canada, to me. One of them is a sea-to-sea country, or ocean-to-ocean, I do not know -- a mari usque ad mare. To me there is an openness to have a geographically sort of limitless type of country. I think that psychologically, in the Canadian psychology, it is incredibly important. There is a feeling of non-confinement and that builds a lot of room for diversity and it builds a lot of room for entrepreneurship. That is something I really cherish.
The second one is the equality of opportunity. Obviously Europe has tons of social programs as well. We are not the exception to the rule here. But I think, given our position with our economic structures and all that, we do promote economic equality in a way that is -- I do not like that word -- liberal.
Mr Bisson: It is still a good word.
Mr Pichette: That is right. It is that horrible word. I should not have used it.
Mr Bisson: It is a temporary setback.
Mr Pichette: That is right. But basically this idea that not everybody in Canada has to be equal in the sense that not everybody should make the same earnings, but everybody should have equal opportunity and there should be a minimum standard of living for every individual in Canada, these kind of programs and ideals are to myself -- and I think too a lot of my colleagues will share this -- think they are vital and it is something that is brought by tolerance. It takes tolerance to be able to write a cheque down or you pay your income tax and you know that this guy down the road is going to get half your paycheque. That type of thing is truly Canadian and it is something worth fighting for.
The Chair: Or against, as the case may be.
Mr Melin: I would like to add I agree with Patrick fully on the social standards. To me, my vision of Canada is the social standards, the equality, the minimum standard of living. This is a society in which people do not suffer.
I come from Saskatchewan. I feel very strongly that Canada is a country which has a number of different cultures and people from all over. I am fully bilingual, and I am fully bilingual because I speak English and Swedish and I do my best in French. I am Swedish in background in part, and that is just part of the tradition in my family. I feel very strongly that my maintaining that is not anti-Canadian.
I am not sort of reducing my worth to the country. I feel that contributes. Growing up in Saskatchewan with friends who had Ukrainian backgrounds and backgrounds from all different countries, I felt it was very enriching. You know, we often make external comparisons. We say the difference between Canada and the United States is that in Canada we care. We can make the comparisons as well on a cultural basis with the United States or with Europe. In Canada we have people from different cultures and we live together and we get along, and that is very important to me.
2030
M. LeBlanc : Si je peux juste terminer avec une vision personnelle du Canada. je suis très reconnaissant au Canada du passé, depuis les années 60, en tant qu'Acadien et notre nature multiculturelle. Si j'ai pu préserver ma langue et si je peux vous parler ce soir en français, c'est parce qu'on a eu des lois qui protégeaient les minorités.
Au Nouveau-Brunswick, nous sommes une province qui est fondamentalement bilingue, légalement bilingue. J'ai pu étudier en français toute ma vie. Jusqu'à l'âge de 22 ans, à travers mes études universitaires au Nouveau-Brunswick, j'ai pu reconnaître que si ce n'était pour ces lois-là et l'encouragement que nous avons eu d'un gouvernement fédéral qui protégeait les minorités, notre communauté acadienne, qui est très vivante dans le moment au Nouveau-Brunswick, ne serait plus ou serait des cadavres encore chauds, comme on a dit une fois.
Mais je ne crois vraiment pas que nous sommes des cadavres encore chauds et c'est en grande partie le résultat de cette vision du Canada qui protège les droits des minorités.
RENATO CIOLSI
The Chair: Could I call next Renato Ciolsi.
Mr Ciolsi: Good evening and thank you for giving me this opportunity. I guess I am here as a concerned Canadian.
I want to say that I fell in love with Canada on 3 November 1962 at about 4 p.m. I remember it was snowing, of course, and Dorval airport appeared as a mysterious place, and yet as I stepped down from the plane I said aloud, and I remember as if it were today: "I am in Canada. This is going to be my new country. I am going to build my life here and I am going to speak English and French."
I was astonished that in Toronto no one spoke French, and that in high school we did not study Canadian history or Canadian literature, but we did learn a lot about the American Civil War with footnotes on the runaway slaves and the underground railway to Canada, and about British history, although, again strange to me, nothing about French history. If Canada was founded by the English and the French, should we not study both histories if we accept the premise that we need to study our heritage, or do we care about only half our past?
The first few years of growing up Canadian I felt intellectually half naked. Then I discovered Montreal and Monique Lerac, Leonard Cohen and Robert Charlebois. I discovered Quebec City and the cultural pride and the historical pain compressed like a black hole in that slogan, Je me souviens. Through the tears, the shivers brought on by the subfreezing weather and the too many beers of a 17-year-old Cree Indian, I also discovered the mistreatment of our native people.
In Toronto I discovered Gordon Lightfoot and Stephen Leacock and by 1967 I had found my Canada, with all its splendid qualities and its wonderful people and its regional, parochial, asinine expressions of unilingual, unicultural bigotry. In 1967 we celebrated our centennial. Today with obtuse balkanized minds flying with rampant, selfish, egotistical political greed, we are marching backwards into prejudice, into bigotry and into the living splendour of two solitudes.
Today I ask you not to discuss mediocrity, not to examine selfishness, but to stand up for excellence, the greatness, the human richness, the cultural vitality that our Canada can be. Only together we are truly Canadian, and Canada exists only as a whole, just as our individual families can exist only in their complete form.
I do not want you to go on to speak for Ontario, and I do not want you to speak for English Canada, but I beg you as a committee to speak for Canada. Think about it. It is absolute nonsense to state that there are two Canadas. There is only one Canada, and there is no Canada without one of its parts.
Yet our whole discussion on the need for a new constitutional agreement has clearly defined trenches -- it is "us" against "them." All our political forces and all our experts are talking of the new division of power. Our Constitution should not celebrate divisions, but define the greatness of bonds, of our nationhood.
The Constitution is not simply a document of rights and obligations and jurisdictions. Our Constitution should hold sacred the soul of our nation, of our people, and we are one people. My French-speaking compatriots do not need a "distinct society" clause. I consider them my equals and not second-class citizens. Our Constitution should hold that Canada is one nation founded by two linguistic groups, and that Canada has one culture born from the coming together of the people of the world.
Canada itself is a distinct society. There should be no special privileges for one group, no "distinct society" clauses, no pork-barrel multiculturalism. We are Canadians, residents of Ontario, and we hold within us the richness of our Acadian, our Maritime and Quebec heritage, just as much as we hold dear and have been shaped by the people of the Prairies and those living in the Rockies regions. And within us we hold dear, I think, a most sacred trust and privilege, to respect, maintain, appreciate and uphold the culture, the heritage and the reality of our native people.
I ask you to put forth a vision of Canada that is pluralistic in its politics, democratic in its institutions and its laws, just in its social norms, rich in its culture, homogeneous in its identity.
When I visit relatives in Italy, they say that I do not think like an Italian. They are right. I am a Canadian, proud of it, and I think as a Canadian. From sea to sea we are one people, building a great nation and developing a culture which embraces the world. Let us then articulate our rebirth as a nation not by seeking to defend or acquire new powers, but by recognizing the rights and contributions of all our citizens to the development of Canada. I know that my children are special. Their cultural heritage is the world and they are growing up proud of all they have.
I learned about the love for liberty from my geography teacher. He came from Latvia. I understood what it meant to die for democracy from my friends of Hungarian origin. My friends born in Iraq have given me a deeper appreciation of human rights.
I am proud of great Canadians such as Beck, Champlain, Bethune, Laura Second, Macdonald, Laurier, Margaret Atwood, Marshall McLuhan, Mowat; sports figures like Esposito, Gretsky, Beliveau and Hull; scientists like Banting and Best, and thousands more.
I am proud of those Canadians that built our railways across this land and of those that opened up the west, and those that build our roads and skyscrapers, and those that dug coal in Cape Breton or fished off the shores of the Grand Banks; people, all of these, who came from across the world, people who have all become proud Canadians, and hundreds of them have died for this land.
My Canadian identity is rich from the best the world can offer. Tell me, of what culture, of what language should I be afraid, and why?
Only if we are confident in ourselves, in our culture, in our identity, can we appreciate and dialogue with all other cultures. We are not perfect. Let us then open our hearts and our minds and seek to understand others as we would like others to understand us. We should start this process among ourselves in Canada because we have let regional petty interests and hunger for power blind us to the need and rights of our brothers across the land.
2040
Our constitution must clearly recognize the linguistic duality of our country and Canada should be a bilingual nation from sea to sea. Our education system should be driven by a federal education act, and all academic diplomas, degrees, licences and professional certificates issued in one province should be recognized across Canada. French and English should be mandatory subjects from kindergarten to the end of high school. No trick barriers of commerce duties should exist between our provinces.
We can have the Senate become an elected body and all provinces, territories and native people would elect an equal number of representatives, our Constitution I think should recognize and uphold the sovereignty of the native nation within Canada, and please ladies and gentlemen, let's stop defining Canadians by their birth origins. I am a Canadian, period.
Perhaps I have been sounding too idealistic, but look at the bottom line: there is not one single geographic reason for Canada to exist. The opposite is probably true. There is not one single economic reason for Canada to exist. The opposite is probably true. Canada exists only because we want it to exist. It is in our heart and it is in our soul. Canada is a commitment. Canada is a state of mind. Canada to me is also a dream and a very special hope. Canada is the way we choose to live our lives and raise our children. I ask you to dream too, to be courageous and innovative, to be proud of Canada and seek a constitution that upholds our unity, not one that divides powers.
Seek a constitution that celebrates Canada and not one that legalizes regional envies. Seek and celebrate the soul of this country and of our people, because in the final analysis Canada is people, not powers. Canada is us, together, or nothing at all.
The Chair: Mr Ciolsi, there are two people on the list to question. If we are both brief with the questions and the answers, we can probably get through them.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very fascinating and it helped me to better understand the situation. You were talking about the federal powers and the cultural richness by sharing. That sharing will help us to understand each other. Do you feel it will help to reduce the division between us?
Mr Ciolsi: I think if we approach the Constitution by looking at the problems and how can we best solve these problems, instead of which powers shall we define, and approach this problem, then we are probably half way through winning the battle.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: You certainly have made Canada your country. You say that you did not study Canadian history as such. You certainly have studied Canadian history in your own way and you are an example. I liked one of your phrases when you said, "Canada exists because we want it to exist." I think if you have really studied Canadian history, that is true. You gave the reasons for that.
We know it cannot exist the way it is. I think if we are real at all, and you are idealistic and I tend to have some of those qualities, we know that however much we have all these ideals and values, we are at a crossroads. I am wondering if you could say a little bit more about the best road to follow. I know you have said we cannot talk about powers, but could you say a little bit more about a recommendation that this committee could make that would build on some of the ideas you have presented?
Mr Ciolsi: I think one of the key points for us is to understand and certainly make our French compatriots feel at home within this nation, to make them first of all realize that Canada is their nation, that their nation is not limited to one province. Therefore, I think if we a priori accept the bilingual duality, the bilingual aspects of this nation, then we are probably extending the hand to discuss all the other problems that you can try to work out.
There has to be a compromise and there has to be some give and take, but what I was trying to stress was that the obtaining of power should not be a priority as much as the solution of a certain difference of opinion becomes a priority and then we work out a mechanism by which we apply our solution.
RIK GATES
The Chair: I call Rik Gates.
Mr Gates: You are probably all wondering why I called you here this evening. I have always wanted to say that.
My name is Rik Gates and I just moved to Toronto a year ago. I am from Nova Scotia. First, I would like to thank you, members of the committee, for giving me this opportunity tonight to be able to express my views of the country and how I feel, and I will attempt to express my views of 25 years in the time allotted for me this evening, so please bear with me.
I am very intrigued and yet somewhat bewildered at all these committees and commissions that have been formed over the past few months, and I will expand on this later in my presentation.
As an individual, since I am not representing any specific group, there are three areas that I feel that need to be addressed by the leaders of Ontario and Canada, and these are just basically my views. I am sure other Canadians think other issues are more pertinent.
One is Canada's leadership in the political system as a whole; two, the native people; and three, regional disparity.
On the first issue, our leadership and our political system, this is definitely the most important factor in keeping Canada together, since it will be leadership that will pull Canada out of this post-Meech mess.
This issue relates directly to my earlier statement as to my wonder and bewilderment at all these new committees that are now studying Canada's future. Over the past few months we have seen the formation of Canada's Spicer commission, Quebec's Bélanger-Campeau commission and now the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I am intrigued because nothing like this has ever happened before in Canadian politics.
I am bewildered because, why now? Where were these committees and commissions before Meech Lake? Why are political leaders in all levels of government reactionaries? It is so easy for someone to set up a committee after the event, after Meech Lake had failed, but it takes a real leader to foresee a potential crisis and create a solution through consensus.
Where are the visionaries who will lead Canada into the 21st century? It was real leaders of all political stripes who helped Canada grow into the nation it is today, leaders who challenged us and challenged society. Whether it was greater independence from Great Britain in the beginning, or creating a medicare system envied by other countries around the world, a Bill of Rights, our own Constitution, vast social programs aimed at assisting all Canadians or just even promoting our multiculturalism, it took leaders with a vision for Canada.
All these committees and commissions should have been set up before Meech Lake, not after. We should have learned that even the government that patriated the Constitution in 1982 used a very flawed system, and that itself almost self-destructed.
It kind of reminds me of the sinking of the Titanic. It was not until after the ship had sunk that a commission was set up and realized that with a few more lifeboats possibly everyone could have been saved. The shipbuilder did not have the foresight to see the potential disaster, as with our present leaders. But as a Canadian, I refuse to sit on the deck and play a piano while the ship is sinking and Quebec jumps ship.
Canada is not just in an economic recession; worse, we are in a political depression. If you, as representatives of the Ontario government, want concrete recommendations and not just generalities as to how to fill this political vacuum, then this committee is one perfect example. This committee is an excellent idea, but I am afraid it may be a bit too late. It is the timing, the back of vision for Canada. Canada cannot keep plotting a course for the future day by day.
2050
Meech Lake was a perfect example of what Canada needed: compromise. Meech Lake, with all its flaws, was good for Canada, because everyone compromised. It was not Meech Lake itself which led to its destruction; it was the secretive process which gave it its birth in the first place.
I do not believe governments are re-elected based on numbers, as they like to believe. History has shown us that governments have been elected and re-elected no matter what the deficit, the inflation or the unemployment rate was. If that was the case, I am sure previous governments never would have been re-elected. Rather, they were elected on their principles, honesty and openness. This is probably another recommendation: openness. We are seeing more of it now and it is most welcome. But it was not until after years and years of secretive negotiations and closed-door meetings that the public finally had enough and is now demanding a change. I think we saw that last June when Mulroney and the 11 ministers all rolled the dice. Politicians are polling everything they are doing and saying and reacting to every little decision. Our leaders are not leading a nation but are finding themselves being led.
My second point this evening is the native people. Since the time of Confederation each province has been granted certain powers and a form of self-government. The French have their own province and their own laws and powers to protect their heritage, yet the native people of this land have been by and large ignored. After 124 years of royal commission after royal commission studying every aspect of the native people, nothing has really been done. Finally did Canada witness the native peoples' frustration last summer.
Canadians have this uncanny ability to accept this situation as an unfortunate mistake in our history, with no real commitment to change. A perfect example of this was the events of last summer. During the standoff at Oka, we witnessed genuine support and sympathy for the Mohawks. But as soon as the issue was resolved, both the federal government and we as a society seemed almost immediately to put it behind us.
If we sit by and do nothing, we will certainly be reacting again to an even greater crisis. But as potential visionaries, which I believe we all are, we have a great opportunity to start righting some wrongs. We need to start acting now. Native people need self-government, but giving self-government only to the native people of Ontario will help the native people of this province and leave others out of the process to fend with their own governments, which will probably each have different priorities.
Ontario needs to encourage the other provinces to join the federal government in setting up governing councils in each of the provinces. These governing councils would have independent laws and powers to protect their culture, their language and race, yet work within the laws of Canada. As it would be very difficult to set up a separate province for the native people, guaranteed national representation would be needed in the federal government through the House of Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada. This representation would be entrenched in Canada's Constitution. By granting the native people these basic rights and powers, they would be on the road towards self-respect and dignity, something that is long overdue to one of the founding members of this nation.
This may seem a little extreme, but I am going to use it anyway. We know apartheid is not practised in Canada as it is in South Africa, but I do find some very ironic similarities. Sure, we can say the native people are free to live anywhere they want in Canada, that they are as free as you and me here in this room, but are they really? Democratic freedom may be there in theory, but is it there in spirit? The native people are not as free as we like to think they are. Our educational system is certainly not designed for them. They were put on reservations, which took away their independence. They are now dependent on a system that never really worked for them. Compare the townships of South Africa with the reservations here in Canada. They have many things in common: the higher death rates, the higher crime rates, alcoholism -- the list goes on and on. I find it very hard to call them the native people of Canada. I do not believe they feel they are part of Canada, and I do not know if they want to be associated with Canada.
We as a society have done far better integrating people from other lands and cultures than we have with the native people here. If we continue to ignore addressing the real issues of the native people in the next few years, I believe the world community will view Canada as a totally different country from the generous one it is viewed as today. But far worse is the possibility that Canadians and the native people may lose the one last chance to live together in peace and harmony.
My last point is regional disparity. Regional tensions have varied over the past 124 years. It usually has been between Ottawa and the provinces and not directly between the provinces themselves. Why is that? I believe it derives from two things: power and money.
First, power: Each of the provinces basically has the same amount of powers as handed out in the British North America Act of 1867. That we know. But each province can individually negotiate for more powers or for more money from the federal government, as we have seen with the Quebec government striking a deal with the federal government over immigration. This is where the identical powers of each of the provinces under the BNA Act become misleading. The true power and influence comes from the number of the province's MPs in the House of Commons. The province with the more seats in the House of Commons usually finds it easier to deal with the federal government and to get what it wants. This indirectly causes regionalism.
It is for this reason that many westerners and the maritime provinces feel neglected by the federal government. Many westerners and Maritimers feel that central Canada is catered to: as Ontario and Quebec hold 174 of the 295 seats, almost 60%, it only makes political sense that a federal government would tend to be more sensitive to their needs. So giving provincial governments more federal powers would not necessarily make them more equal, as they would still rely on transfer payments from the federal government, and with the status quo in the House of Commons remaining the same, the federal government would still cater to the needs of Quebec and Ontario in order to remain in power come the next federal election.
Ontario and the other provinces must also keep in mind that they can barely afford to fund the programs that are already under their jurisdiction even with the present transfer payments from the federal government. Between 1984 and 1986, the federal government cut transfer payments to the provinces by some $6 billion. If Ontario and the other provinces want, more federal powers transferred to them, it would only make sense if those powers were already duplicated by both levels of government and if a definite guarantee of funding were to come from the federal government.
As the provinces are going to look out for their interests first and foremost, and with the representation in the House of Commons remaining the same, it would be nearly impossible to erase regionalism from Canada's political landscape. But one arm of the parliamentary system which could give more powers to the provinces yet make the House of Commons more democratic to the needs of all regions of Canada would be the restructuring of the Senate. By creating an equal, elected and effective Senate, all regions of Canada would have the same power and influence in the federal government and the end result would be less regionalism in Canada. The Senate could prevent unnecessary catering to the more powerful provinces in the House of Commons, creating a more equal and democratic country.
But one thing that cannot stop regionalism, unfortunately, is ignorance, and ignorance knows no borders. It is leaders such as these who make hasty comments or uneducated decisions which could have a profound effect on the other regions and the nation as a whole. When it comes to dealing with the Constitution, Canada's 11 first ministers must rise above partisan and regional politics. An example would be Quebec's recently released Allaire report. We do not need leaders making comments that may win them political points at home, but rather benefit Canada as a whole. We need compassionate leaders who can understand Quebec's frustration and that the Allaire report is at least another start. Ontario should be embracing that initiative. By stating that this and that is wrong with the Allaire report, Ontario would be sending a signal to the people of Quebec that we are in no mood to listen and negotiate. We must proceed with a cautious, patient and positive approach.
Canada, for the first time in its history, has the possibility of breaking up, for it is not just Quebec that is unhappy with the present form of federalism. It seems that over the past few months Canada's identity or its soul, whatever you want to call it, has changed from regions who worked together to build a nation to a nation falling apart because of its regions. I find that a very ironic demise, and hopefully this committee will be able to do something about that. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gates. 2100
Mr Bisson: You raised a couple of interesting points that I was mulling over as you were speaking. It seems to me that maybe one of the problems we have is that we somehow are trying to change the way we think, change the way we do things when it comes to our federal and provincial governments, with regard to imposing guidelines and saying things have to be done in a neat, orderly, business fashion. Unfortunately -- and fortunately at the same time -- the country is much more than an accident in the whole democratic process.
You said part of the problem we have is that the structure of the federal system is that the province with the most seats in the House is the one that gets the most attention, and you gave us an alternative of having an elected Senate. I do not want to get so much into a debate on the Senate but a debate around the House of Commons. There is an argument on one side that if the House of Commons has to have equal representation by the provinces, how do you recognize that Ontario clearly has the majority of the population of this country? And Quebec would got equal representation to, let's say, PEI or British Columbia and vice versa. How do you address that?
Mr Gates: That is where the Senate would offset the imbalance in the House of Commons. By looking at the present system as it is, Atlantic Canada only has 32 seats, and whether it would be fair for us to have the same amount of seats as Ontario and Quebec, which have two-thirds of the population -- I do not think that would be acceptable.
But the Senate could balance that catering; by making it elected and effective it could subvert any programs the federal government would benefit Ontario and Quebec. Right now, it looks as if it would maybe take some of the heat off the provinces, because whenever a Premier of a province speaks up, he is speaking to that region. When you have 11 men or women in a room fighting, that creates regionalism. But if you took it off that and you took it from one man or woman, the head of a province, to maybe 10 or 15 or 20, whatever the amount of seats per province, I think that would also break the regionalism. You would not have the Premier of Nova Scotia saying, "I speak for Nova Scotia federally." No, he does not. The Senate does. I think that would help break regionalism in Canada.
The Chair: We are going to move on. Thank you, Mr Gates.
We have two other speakers who had been given to understand that they would be heard this evening. I would like, with the forbearance of the committee, to move to them now. We will ask the speakers to be as brief as they can.
DAVID HUBAND
Mr Huband: My name is David Huband. I am an actor-comedian, and I have been living and sometimes working in Toronto for the last nine years.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this committee tonight. In the past, issues such as Meech Lake and the free trade debate have totally excluded the voting public in the political process, and it is a welcome change that ordinary citizens such as myself have a chance to be part of the dialogue in determining the future of Canada. For that, I once again thank the committee for allowing me to be part of that dialogue.
I really had no idea what I wanted to talk to you about today, so thank you and good night.
I was talking to a friend of mine last week about a really bad television show on the CBC called Urban Angel. It is a new show. My friend asked me why it was so bad and I said, "It tries too hard to be like a typical American cop show." All the elements are there -- the violence, drugs, prostitutes, the obligatory car chase -- but somehow it just did not cut it. It was missing something. I said, "You know, I wish Canadian producers would come up with a television show that truly reflects the Canadian experience." My friend asked me, "What would that be?" And I said, "I don't know." I was really stumped.
I guess before you can come up with a show that reflects the Canadian identity, first of all you have to come up with a Canadian identity. What does Canada stand for? What does it mean to be a Canadian? Our people have been grappling with those questions virtually since our inception as a nation. We can look to our past for some clues and find that we have deep-rooted ties with the British, the French and native peoples. We can look to the present and find that the Americans have a huge influence on our daily lives, but what of the future? What will influence us or define us as a people in the 21st century? I asked a lot of my friends and a lot of people in the last little while, "What would you define as being the Canadian identity?" Most everyone said "nice." We are a nice people, Canada is a nice place to live. We exude niceness. Well, is that it? Will Canada be doomed to go down in history as being a nice nation? Surely there must be more to it than that.
The whole question of whether Quebec will separate or not has really made me wonder what it means to be a Canadian, and I do not think we have it figured out yet. I do think Quebeckers have a strong sense of identity, a strong sense of who they are and where they want to go.
The issue of separatism has been around for decades, but I never really took it seriously until the dramatic changes in eastern Europe occurred about two years ago. To this day, it boggles my mind that the two Germanys are united and the Warsaw Pact has virtually been dismantled.
Even recent events in the Baltic states demonstrate that here you have ethnic cultures and peoples who are clamouring for their independence. They have long been suppressed and they want their freedom from a large monolithic state which does not recognize their distinct societies. Where have I heard that before?
If such monumental change can occur in eastern Europe, then it surely can occur here in Canada, and I suggest that such a change might not necessarily be a bad thing. Who knows? If Quebec were to separate, it might just be the catalyst that brings the rest of the country together, that defines us as a nation.
I am not so naïve or idealistic to assume that there would not be problems associated with a split, nor am I advocating one. Economically, it would be extremely painful for Quebec as well as the rest of Canada, and the hardships would be unbelievable. Geopolitically it would further isolate the Atlantic provinces from the rest of the country and only add to their growing sense of being ignored on a federal level. Were Quebec to secede, it might even fractionize the western provinces, already distrustful of Ontario. It might just break apart the country.
But I tend to think not. Perhaps I am being unduly optimistic, but I think if Quebec were to separate, it would unite the rest of Canada. We would be fighting to hold on to our country. We would be a part of history, of forging an identity and redefining our nation for centuries to come. We would not be nice. That prospect I find very exciting. Of course, I could be wrong. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Huband.
ALLIANCE HAÏTIENNE
The Chair: Our final speaker, Pierre-Eddy Toussaint from the Alliance haïtienne.
M. Toussaint : Monsieur le Président, mesdames, messieurs du comité spécial sur le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération canadienne, durant votre vie de citoyens canadiens par naissance ou par naturalisation ou durant l'exercice de votre mandat parlementaire à titre de député du peuple, vous avez sans doute vu quelque part les inscriptions suivantes : «Honi soit qui mal y pense ; Dieu et mon droit ; Maintiens le droit».
Il serait intéressant de savoir combien d'entre vous savent réellement d'où viennent ces mots ; combien sont capables de les lire correctement. Combien sont capables de l'écrire et combien en connaissent la signification ? N'éprouvez aucun embarras à révéler votre niveau de difficulté à ces interrogations. On estime que près de 80% à 85% de la majorité constitutionnelle du Canada faillirait ce petit test de civisme sur l'histoire et la culture de l'état juridique fondé par la lignée européenne des peuples fondateurs, car en effet, le Canada historique précède le Canada juridique.
Avant Jacques Cartier, Champlain, Giovanni Caboto et autres explorateurs nordiques, il y avait des autochtones du Nord et du Sud. Lorsque les Européens décidèrent de s'établir sur cette partie du continent qu'ils appelleraient plus tard «Amérique», ils eurent recours également aux services des peuples d'autres races amenés d'autres continents. C'est ainsi que le premier nègre d'Afrique sur le continent nord-américain est retracé dans la première moitié du 17e siècle au côté de Samuel de Champlain, à titre de traducteur entre l'explorateur français et les peuples autochtones.
2110
Remarquez bien que, jusqu'à l'heure où je vous parle, les peuples fondateurs de l'état juridique du Canada n'ont encore ni jugé bon de solliciter du Vatican d'auréoler Mathieu De Costa de la béatitude de saint patron des traducteurs canadiens, ni de lui ériger un monument ou de faire porter son nom à un pont, une rivière, une école, une montagne, une ville, une rue, alors qu'à l'égal, des pères de la Confédération, Champlain, Cartier, Montcalm, Wolfe, Macdonald sont honorés sous mille formes en signe de patriotisme canadien.
Sur le plan spirituel de la foi catholique, les Saints Martyrs dont la tragique épopée précède la Confédération, selon la version eurocentrique, sont effectivement béatifiés tout comme le seront successivement Marguerite Bourgeoys, Marguerite d'Youville et l'autochtone Tekakwitha dans la deuxième moitié du siècle courant.
Vient enfin 1867. Après que leur pénétration sur cette terre ait été facilitée tant par un représentant de la race noire que par les autochtones eux-mêmes, les descendants du premier, c'est-à-dire les peuples noirs, seront mis en esclavage en Nouvelle-France, pratique honteuse qui atteindra son point culminant par l'exécution de Marie-Joseph Angélique au bûcher pour tentative de fuite de l'habitation de ses maîtres français.
Quant aux autochtones, après avoir subi l'insulte de se voir imposer une nouvelle identité ethnoculturelle en compensation de l'erreur monumentale d'un illustre voyageur qui allait prouver au reste du monde malgré lui que la terre était bien ronde, les nouveaux Indiens d'Amérique, comme on les appelle, devront se faire à l'idée qu'ils ont été découverts, alors que c'est eux qui avaient découvert des étrangers perdus sur leur plage.
Ils seront ensuite exterminés, leurs terres dérobées pour donner lieu à un espace vital et fertile divisé en Haut-Canada et en Bas-Canada à l'usage des Européens, alors que ces Indiens devaient se contenter d'espaces plus restreints appelés réserves.
Les rivalités tribales du continent européen avaient amené leur tissu d'hostilité et de convoitise sur la terre conquise. Après que le plus fort l'eut emporté sur le plus faible, on assista à un phénomène de conquête très rare entre peuples et armées adverses. Pour des raisons de stratégie militaire et de survie ethnoculturelle, le concurrent accepta que l'armée vaincue et son peuple garderait leur langue, leur culture, leur religion, leurs lois fondamentales et une des lois fondamentales de leur pays d'origine, le Code civil. C'est sur cette tradition de principe -- gentleman's agreement, qu'on dit dans la langue de Shakespeare -- du respect juridique et constitutionnel de la minorité que le Canada de 1867 allait voir le jour.
La Confédération canadienne, plus tard appelée Dominion, était née avec comme souverain le chef régnant de la Couronne britannique dont les armoiries portaient depuis déjà deux siècles l'inscription "Honi soit qui mal y pense ; Dieu et mon droit».
Si Mathieu De Costa doit être proclamé dans les 12 prochains mois apôtre du multiculturalisme canadien en attendant que sa Sainteté le pape Jean-Paul II, lors de sa prochaine visite chez les autochtones, l'élève à la béatitude, il n'est pas exclu, pour quiconque a un certain sens de l'histoire des peuples et de l'évolution des langues, de constater que le bilinguisme, avant d'être un produit canadien, est enraciné dans la Couronne britannique, gardienne d'une culture et d'une langue qui compte plus de 60% de mots d'origine française.
Je vous invite donc à conclure avec moi et à déclarer solennellement que toute opposition à la politique des langues officielles du Canada, toute campagne haineuse contre le bilinguisme est une insulte à la Couronne britannique et à la reine du Canada, Sa Majesté Élisabeth II qui, à chaque tournée de son royaume canadien d'Amérique du Nord, se fait un honneur, un devoir et un plaisir de s'exprimer dans les deux langues officielles par le truchement d'un niveau de français normatif jusque-là incontesté par aucun académicien français, par aucun linguiste ou philologue du monde.
Tant et aussi longtemps que la Couronne britannique de la reine du Canada ou de son futur roi portera des inscriptions françaises sur ses armoiries, le Canada n'aura d'autre choix que de rester un pays bilingue avec le français et l'anglais comme langues de communication, à moins que le Canada anglais ne veuille envoyer un message de désaveux à Sa Majesté britannique, forme de chantage qui voudrait dire : «Ici on ne veut pas de français, alors avant de nous visiter, Majesté, vous feriez mieux de vous débarrasser des inscriptions françaises qui se trouvent sur vos armoiries. On est un pays unilingue anglais».
De même, ceux qui pensent que le départ du Québec de la Confédération signifie la fin du bilinguisme canadien se trompent grandement. En diverses parties du Canada et particulièrement en Ontario, des gens d'expression française sont venus de partout et se sont intégrés à la collectivité francophone de cette province alors qu'elle n'était même pas encore dotée de toutes les institutions démocratiques qui pourraient la rendre juridiquement et constitutionnellement viable.
Historiquement, la communauté francophone a survécu par simple question de volonté, de détermination et de forte collective des membres de cette communauté. De nos jours, grâce à l'immigration et en dépit de certains vents politiques qui pourraient lui être contraires, la francophonie est encore plus vibrante qu'elle ne l'était hier et ceci, que le Québec reste ou pas au sein de la Confédération.
La francophonie canadienne, particulièrement en Ontario, n'a plus besoin d'être rivée au Québec pour garantir son alimentation culturelle parce qu'elle est justement dotée de cette dimension multiculturelle et interraciale qui fait sa richesse, sa force et sa nouvelle vitalité. La francophonie ontarienne est à l'heure de la francophonie internationale. Le monde de chez nous, c'est le monde de partout.
Je suis un citoyen canadien de race noire, d'expression française et d'origine haïtienne. Mes enfants sont des Franco-Ontariens de race noire, d'expression française et de descendance haïtienne. En effet, en arrivant dans ce pays, j'ai fait le choix de vivre dans l'une de ces deux langues officielles, laquelle se trouvait à être la langue officielle de mon pays d'origine.
Monsieur Silipo, vous et vos parents, n'ayant pas eu cette chance-là, vous avez choisi d'être Canadien d'expression anglaise d'origine ou de descendance italienne. Joe Fratesi a obéi à la même logique à Sault-Sainte-Marie, mais je pourrais également vous citer au Québec bon nombre de familles canadiennes-françaises d'origine et de descendance italienne. Je suis un enseignant du système catholique de Toronto. C'est le cas de plusieurs parents de mes élèves de North York qui sont également de descendance italienne avec un cousin, un oncle, on petit neveu, une tante francophone à Montréal.
Connaissez-vous le chroniqueur Pierre Foglia ; le professeur Roberto Penn de l'Université de Toronto ici à Toronto ; et installée depuis une dizaine d'années dans la banlieue torontoise de Brampton, la famille Gandolfo ? Ce sont des Canadiens français de descendance italienne.
Je n'ai pas demandé d'être nègre dans une peau noire. Mais aussi, c'est seulement des contingences historiques qui expliquent le fait que je sois francophone. Si, au nom du principe de l'autodétermination des peuples et de leurs droits à la migration garantis par la Charte des Nations Unies, il est permis à tout être humain de changer de nationalité, il y a quelque chose qui ne m'est pas encore possible ou permis : c'est de changer la couleur de ma peau ou de ma condition raciale.
Dans le contexte juridique, politique et constitutionnel canadien, j'ai également fait le choix de rester francophone au Canada et de me battre pour que le statut du français en Ontario et au Canada continue à jouir de toutes les garanties constitutionnelles qui permettent à une langue, à une culture et à une collectivité de même appartenance de s'épanouir sainement.
Détrompez-vous, je ne fais pas la lutte des Franco-Ontariens. Je ne suis pas francophone pour les Franco-Ontariens ; je suis francophone parce que je suis fier de l'être. Si ça peut aider la cause des Franco-Ontariens, pourquoi pas ? Je suis francophone parce que dans le pays du Canada, cela me permet de tirer certains avantages personnels sur le plan culturel, sur le plan politique, sur le plan économique ou encore, cela permet à des gens de même condition ethnoculturelle et raciale que moi de tirer des bénéfices de ces conditions-là. Il ne serait peut-être pas d'ailleurs malavisé de vous conseiller d'apporter ce message au parti gouvernemental et à vos collègues de la Législature ontarienne.
Dans toutes mesures législatives ou dispositions administratives de gouvernement concernant la collectivité francophone, les membres des communautés ethnoculturelles francophones de l'Ontario veulent être systématiquement et régulièrement pris en considération : Noirs, Asiatiques, femmes, Juifs, musulmans, protestants, handicapés et même ceux qui sont d'orientation sexuelle différente, de la même façon que vous, Monsieur le député, anglophone et francophile de descendance italienne, il vous est donné le privilège aujourd'hui de présider dans une province majoritairement anglaise un comité politique sur le rôle de l'Ontario dans la Confédération.
2120
Sur plus de soixante organismes francophones de la région torontoise, il y en a à peu près une douzaine qui sont des organismes ethnoculturels : les Français, les Haïtiens, les Égyptiens, les Marocains, les Zaïrois, les Maghrébins et sans compter les groupes nationaux qui ne sont pas constitués encore en organismes pour une raison ou pour une autre.
Je m'en voudrais de ne pas aborder ce dialogue avec vous en laissant de côté la dimension raciale au profit de la problématique linguistique. Lorsque la problématique linguistique sera réglée au Canada, tant au sein de la communauté francophone qu'au sein de la communauté anglophone, la question des relations interraciales restera un défi pour l'ensemble de la société ontarienne. Ceci est d'autant plus vrai qu'il y a une nouvelle classe de citoyens qui risque d'être victime de multiples injustices dans la perception biaisée d'une catégorie ou d'ensemble de catégories raciales et ethnoculturelles de cette société. Il s'agit des Noirs d'expression française d'origine haïtienne en grande majorité, mais aussi d'origine martiniquaise et de différentes origines nationales africaines. Je m'inquiète particulièrement du sort de nos femmes qui, en plus de l'identité raciale, linguistique et de la nationalité d'origine, doivent aussi assumer d'une identité minoritaire dont elles ne peuvent se défaire : leur condition féminine.
Dans l'aménagement en personnel, c'est-à-dire les employés des institutions tant anglophones que francophones, votre gouvernement devra passer des instructions à ses agences ministérielles et autres commissions pour qu'on en tienne compte.
Dans vos rapports avec la communauté noire locale au niveau provincial, il y aura lieu que vous en teniez compte et que les politiques des ministères des affaires francophones et des affaires civiques en tiennent compte également, tant l'accessibilité, tant leurs services que leurs positions, nominations, embauches disponibles à tous les échelons.
Plusieurs membres de segment francophone de la communauté noire se dévouent au-delà d'une vingtaine d'années dans la vie communautaire et professionnelle en Ontario et se distinguent tant dans l'action bénévole que dans leur milieu de travail. Loin de chercher pour eux des bénéfices politiques personnels que les esprits malins auraient trop de plaisir à associer au patronage, il y aurait lieu d'envisager, de reconnaître leur patrimoine culturel en l'intégrant à la mosaïque multiculturelle de la société ontarienne globale. Je pense à la réhabilitation de Marie-Joseph Angélique, sinon par le texte législatif mais par des mesures administratives qui encouragent les citoyens canadiens de toutes races à abhorrer l'exploitation de l'être humain qu'était l'esclavage et ses ravages.
Je pense à l'hommage plus que centenaire que l'on doit à Mathieu De Costa. C'est beau de se mettre au diapason de la société mondiale contemporaine et d'honorer Mandela, Martin Luther King. Quand on sait que les ancêtres européens des deux peuples fondateurs, peu importe qu'ils aient vécu en Europe ou avant la création de la Confédération, quand on sait que les ancêtres européens des deux peuples fondateurs ont bénéficié et continuent à bénéficier de toutes sortes d'hommages qui sur le plan culturel et éducatif renforcent le sens de l'identification au héros et le désir de s'en inspirer comme modèle, on ne peut qu'espérer que, pour les segments ethnoculturels de la population canadienne, ce processus se poursuivra.
Si Dollard des Ormeaux peut être honoré par exemple au Québec, je ne vois pas pourquoi nos élèves de race noire devraient être dans l'impossibilité de commémorer le 200e anniversaire de la mort de Toussaint-Louverture, en même temps que leurs camarades d'autres races pourraient apprendre comment un homme de race noire s'est mérité une place dans l'histoire du monde. Je ne verrais pas d'un mauvais oeil qu'en collaboration avec un régime démocratique instable en Haïti, le gouvernement provincial habilite TVOntario à rédiger un documentaire, à monter un documentaire sur la guerre de l'indépendance d'Haïti en vue de célébrer l'an 2004, le 200e anniversaire de l'accession à l'indépendance de la première république noire du monde.
De pareils projets exigent évidemment que l'Ontario développe des relations extérieures avec des pays francophones à travers le monde. Ce serait donc une opportunité de procéder, à partir d'ici, à un plan d'ébauche moyennant l'utilisation de citoyens de même origine nationale comme personnes-ressources, en tant que consultants ou en tant que membres d'une éventuelle délégation ontarienne dans le pays d'origine où très souvent, en plus du français, langue officielle, on cultive des langues nationales populaires telles que le créole, l'arabe, le lingala, le wolof, le swahili, d'où l'intérêt international d'un Ontario officiellement bilingue et offrant des services en français plus diversifiés.
N'oubliez pas qu'il y a près de 40 pays à travers le monde qui se réclament de la francophonie et qu'à l'heure actuelle en Ontario, il n'y a à peu près pas un seul de ces pays qui ne possède quelques-uns de ces ressortissants dans la province la plus riche et la plus industrialisée du Canada.
Enfin, avant de vous quitter, permettez que je vous exprime mes sentiments en tant que membre d'une minorité visible francophone face à l'unilinguisme affiché par la ville de Sault-Sainte-Marie et ma façon d'y réagir. Je trouve qu'il y a eu là on mélange d'intolérance grandissante, d'ignorance et de distorsion de l'histoire et de la réalité politique contemporaine. Ce n'est pas vrai que la politique du bilinguisme officiel menace l'autre langue officielle majoritaire du Canada ; 500 000 dans 8 millions ne serait constituer un danger, et encore moins 6 millions sur 22 millions.
Ce n'est pas vrai que les postes bilingues enlèvent des emplois aux anglophones ; au contraire, la théorie du nombre risque d'être préjudiciable aux francophones si l'enseignement du français langue seconde et l'immersion française continuent d'être un succès à travers la province dans les dix prochaines années à venir. En tant qu'enseignant de français langue seconde, je peux vous en dire quelque chose. Ce ne seront plus les francophones qui détiendront les postes bilingues.
D'ailleurs on n'a qu'à regarder, dans l'enseignement, dans l'ensemble des conseils scolaires de la région torontoise pour voir quels sont les dispensateurs de l'enseignement du français langue seconde. Les services en français ne s'adressent absolument pas aux anglophones, mais aux francophones qui veulent bien jouir de leurs droits constitutionnels pour s'en servir ou non en raison de principe historique fondamental qui est au coeur, à l'origine même de cette nation et la transcende même.
Au-delà des faits d'armes victorieux, ceux qui se réclament de la grande tradition de noblesse et de chevalerie de l'Empire britannique feraient mieux de comprendre que c'est au nom de ces principes mêmes qui distinguent les conquérants civilisateurs des envahisseurs annihilateurs, que les soldats victorieux de Sa Majesté britannique, sur les plaines d'Abraham, n'ont pas jugé nécessaire d'ajouter l'insulte à l'injure en ne pas dépouillant le vaincu de tous ses attributs culturels, surtout lorsque ce vaincu jure de prêter serment d'allégeance à partir des véhicules d'expression culturelle qu'on voudra bien lui laisser.
Que fallait-il de mieux pour bâtir un rempart linguistique contre une menace des insurgés américains ? Avant comme après la Confédération, les acquis culturels et linguistiques français sauvegardés et garantis tant par les Britanniques que par la majorité canadienne anglaise, ces acquis culturels et linguistiques français ont servi les intérêts du Canada et avec le temps ont été l'élément distinctif de l'identité canadienne.
Comme les temps changent, les conjonctures politiques également évoluent avec elle ; 137 ans de petites injustices et d'autres inégalités à l'égard des Canadiens français ont été corrigés dans un dialogue ferme mais civilisé. C'est l'un des seuls pays au monde qui soit en mesure de faire preuve de tant d'équilibre de sa dualité sans verser dans les violences qui ruinent les ressources matérielles, les infrastructures socio-économiques, méprisent massivement les vies humaines et déstabilisent la sécurité publique et les institutions politiques.
Dans un continent de 200 millions de parlants anglais, partie intégrante d'un ensemble de 20 millions additionnels, au nombre desquels on peut compter 6 millions de francophones regroupés sur un territoire où ils jouissent d'un pouvoir politique juridictionnel, il faut admettre que le Québec n'est absolument pas une province comme les autres. Comme dans le genre de société mondiale dans laquelle on est appelé à vivre il n'est pas possible et souhaitable de perpétuer les querelles linguistiques pour une autre période de 130 ans, on doit se rendre à l'évidence qu'on est arrivé au point où il faut autoriser à la seule juridiction territoriale de langue française qui détient un certain pouvoir politique en Amérique de pouvoir en jouir souverainement, que ce soit à l'intérieur ou à l'extérieur du Canada.
Dans l'intervalle, certains citoyens persistent à croire que le départ du Québec de la Confédération, c'est la fin du bilinguisme officiel au Canada. Il faudrait leur en fournir le plus vibrant démenti à moins que certains ne veuillent répéter une édition fin 20e siècle de la déportation des Acadiens. On voit avec l'exemple du golfe Persique comment pareille entreprise même sous des formes modernisées serait périlleuse, scandaleuse et nuisible à l'image internationale du Canada.
Les vestiges des premiers défricheurs français de la terre des Indiens pullulent à travers le continent américain, et particulièrement à travers l'état juridique du Canada créé conjointement par les descendants des deux groupes culturels en provenance de l'Europe occidentale.
Il est bizarre que ceux qui veulent changer les règles du jeu constitutionnel canadien sont les mêmes qui n'admettraient point qu'on ose toucher à la Magna Carta du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne. Au coeur du Nouveau-Brunswick, il y a l'Acadie française, au coeur de Toronto, la Ville-Reine il y a le Fort Frontenac. Dans les provinces de l'Ouest, la présence française d'avant la Confédération est tellement indéniable que ceux qui, par le biais d'une législation provinciale avaient cherché à se soustraire des exigences du bilinguisme institutionnel imposées par la constitution, se sont vus rabroués en Cour supérieure du Canada avec comme punition juridique la traduction dans l'autre langue officielle de ladite province de toutes les lois unilingues anglaises votées jusque-là.
Toute municipalité ontarienne qui veut se payer le luxe de se prévenir contre une disposition législative de la portée de celle des services en français devrait être avertie qu'elle est rayée de la liste de l'itinéraire des visites royales en Ontario, car il est protocolairement embarrassant pour la souveraine d'un pays officiellement bilingue de se rendre en visite dans une ville proclamée unilingue contre une disposition législative qui ne la concerne même pas.
Dans ces termes-là je vous laisse et je vous demande de considérer cette requête de notre vision du Canada de demain.
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Toussaint. Are there any questions?
That concludes this day here in Toronto. We invite those people who are here and those who may be following our meetings over the parliamentary channel to continue following our meetings, if you are so interested, on the parliamentary channel. We will be adjourning tonight and picking up our meetings tomorrow afternoon in Windsor. With that, we are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 2133.