role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 29, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L087 - Wed 29 Jun 1988 / Mer 29 jun 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (CONTINUED) / RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

(SUITE)

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBER’S STATEMENTS

LIBERAL PARTY FUND-RAISING

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

CANADIAN ARMENIAN CENTENNIAL GALA REUNION PICNIC

SUMMER EVENTS IN ORILLIA

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

CANCER TREATMENT

INTERVENER FUNDING

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

INTERVENER FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

VISITOR

POLLS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD

NURSING SERVICES

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

PROVINCIAL FRAGRANCE

FOOD PRICES

ONTARIO LEGAL AID PLAN

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ACCESS FUND

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

AMBULATORY CARE CENTRE

NORTHERN ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES

PETITIONS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

TENANTS’ ADVOCATES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

COMMUNITY CENTRE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATH BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT ACT /

LOI SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX INTERVENANTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

ROCKTON WINTER CLUB INC. ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD / ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL DE 1987

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD / ACCORD CONSTITUTIONNEL DE 1987

CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

WINE CONTENT ACT

WINE CONTENT ACT

MOTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED) / CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES (SUITE)

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

VIC JOHNSTON COMMUNITY CENTRE INC. ACT

PRIMROCK MINING AND EXPLORATION LIMITED ACT

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT

MORAVIAN TEMPLE CORPORATION ACT

OWEN SOUND YOUNG MEN’S AND YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INCORPORATED ACT

PETERBOROUGH CIVIC HOSPITAL ACT

GOTTSCHEER RELIEF ASSOCIATION ACT

INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF HURON ACT

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

LEBON GOLD MINES LIMITED ACT

329931 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT

The House met at 9 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (CONTINUED) / RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

(SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the Report on the Constitution Amendment, 1987, of the select committee on constitutional reform.

Suite du débat adjourné sur la motion pour l’adoption des recommandations contenues dans le rapport de la Modification constitutionnelle de 1987 du Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any members wishing to participate in the debate? The member for Northumberland.

Mrs. Fawcett: Thank you and good morning to you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to open my remarks on this very important debate by expressing my sincere gratitude for being appointed to the select committee on constitutional reform. It would be quite safe to say that it has been a learning experience of a lifetime for all of us. I do not feel that any one member of the committee, and it is definitely true for me, considered himself or herself a constitutional expert before this committee’s inception.

We, the members of this committee, have had the privilege of listening to and discussing with many learned groups and individuals, not only people who are constitutional experts, but also those from every walk of life that is representative of this great land of ours.

I would like to thank my colleagues who were permanent members of this committee and acknowledge their commitment to a process that has been both open and accessible. We were able to show all Ontarians, indeed all Canadians, that this government respects the rights of all individuals to express their views. We learned that the Constitution is not an antiquated document that we read about in history books, but a living, breathing part of every Canadian, a part people feel strongly and care enough about to know that they want to be a part of the process which decides future constitutional changes in our country.

During the process of hearings and submissions, there were two aspects of the 1987 constitutional accord that appeared to receive unanimous consensus. The people of this democratic country of ours felt left out of the constitutional process and told us in no uncertain terms that this should never happen again.

History will bear out the fact that executive federalism has long been a part of Canadian constitutional life and has served us well for the most part. However, over the weeks of the hearings, we grew to realize that Canadians no longer want this to be the norm. Through this committee, they have shown their willingness to participate in constitutional reform. The committee’s recommendation that would afford Canadians the opportunity to have input into future constitutional talks is one with which I wholeheartedly concur.

As all Canadians want to participate in the formation of our country through the constitutional process, so should Canadians in Quebec be afforded this right. The French fact has been evident since the founding of our country. It is interesting to note that when Henry Hudson claimed the territory around Hudson Bay for England in 1610, little did he know that only one year later Etienne Brûlé, a coureur de bois, would be exploring into parts of southern Ontario we know today and would claim them for France.

For 370 years, these two cultures have flourished as this country grew and progressed to nationhood, but now, without Quebec at the table, we as a country cannot move forward as a viable nation into the 21st century. Just as when a family has one of its members estranged from the group, and important decisions affecting everyone in that family either cannot be made or the decisions are not firm ones until all members are operating in full partnership, there is a definite weakness, so too is it with our country.

Our history has witnessed numerous attempts to bring Quebec into the Constitution. Now we can participate in the making of history because the political will is there, and with the ratification of the 1987 constitutional accord, Quebec will become a fully fledged member of our constitutional family.

While there are many more aspects of this accord that have been and will be discussed, there is one area I would feel remiss about if I did not mention it. Over the course of the weeks of hearings, there were many individual women and groups of women who made very well thought-out and accomplished briefs to our committee. They related to us the long, hard, uphill struggle they experienced to achieve recognition. This was finally attained, through

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. In trying to provide us with some insight into their concerns, the relationship between sections 1 and 16 was repeatedly referred to as detrimental to the charter’s sex equality guarantees.

Realizing these concerns, the committee has recommended that after the ratification of the accord, the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada recognizing that the commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada and that upon adoption of the committee’s report by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario this recommendation become a resolution of the assembly and be directed to the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures.

Native people, such as the band that lives in my riding of Northumberland, are deserving of recognition in the constitutional process. The many representatives of aboriginal groups expressed to the committee their feelings that the accord would actively diminish aboriginal rights. Their deep disappointment was demonstrated to us again and again in the failure of the accord to address the issue of aboriginal self-government.

This committee is extremely concerned that Canada’s aboriginal people be fully included in the Constitution. Acting accordingly, the committee recommends that following the ratification of the Constitution Amendment Act of 1987, the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to elaborate the concept of fundamental characteristics so as to reflect the full spectrum of Canadian society. and that such an amendment be a full recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada.

As well, we felt strongly that we understood fully the disappointment about the failure of the accord to address the issue of aboriginal self-government. I felt this was of highest priority and was happy with the unanimous decision of the committee to address this in the form of the second companion resolution.

Another group of Canadians, namely, those who reside in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, were very ably represented at the hearings so that their concerns could be emphasized. The picture of their government representatives knocking on the door when the talks were taking place and being denied entry is not something that should ever be repeated. They expressed their concerns about the changes in the appointment of senators and the filling of vacant seats on the Supreme Court of Canada.

They felt these new provisions do not allow the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to nominate candidates to fill their Senate seats or vacant seats on the Supreme Court of Canada. We, as a committee, have recognized their concerns and dealt with them in the report.

They also point to another

part in the accord which they felt would greatly jeopardize their aspirations for provincehood, that being, I know from my short visit there last summer, that the Yukon already has joint tourism promotion with the United States and that many of their activities are connected with the United States. However, they remain proud Canadians, and in order to encourage that feeling, we must ensure their participation in future constitutional negotiations. We must keep open the lines of communication between our most northern Canadians and the rest of Canada.

As the month of hearings went by, one thought remained constant and seemed to separate itself and emerge above all other concerns with the accord. We must welcome back Quebec into the constitutional family of Canada. The importance of this accord is paramount in the nation-building of our country. This building cannot be considered unless all provinces participate in the future constitutional changes we, as a nation, must face.

Countries are not static. They change over time. Any living thing is changing. The only changeless state is rigor mortis. Quebec represents approximately 25 per cent of the total population of our country. To leave them out of the constitutional process would greatly detract from the ability of constitutional changes to reflect the demands of today’s society.

We have before us the opportunity to bring a large part of Canada back into the constitutional fold. Only after this is done can we best address the many other concerns our committee has had the opportunity to see and hear. I have confidence that should our recommendations be given full consideration these concerns will be addressed in future constitutional talks. I have faith that the people of Canada will want to continue to have a

part in the formation of our Constitution.

I believe it is imperative that the people of this country come to know one another better in order to arrive at a national understanding and appreciation of the many diverse cultures and ways of life that contribute to this Canada we all share.

In closing, I would like to thank our chairman, the member for York North (Mr. Beer), for the great effort he put forth which allowed this committee to act in an open, accessible manner consistent with the government of today. The ratification of the accord in this Legislative Assembly will not only be a testimony to his and the committee’s efforts but to all Ontarians, and so I ask all my colleagues for unanimous support in ratifying the accord at this very timely occasion, two days before Canada’s 121st birthday. It is a most appropriate way for Ontarians to say, “Happy Birthday, Canada.”

Mr. Laughren: I must regretfully tell the member for Northumberland that I cannot accede to her wish to make support of the committee report unanimous, nor can I make support of the Meech Lake accord unanimous in this chamber. Even if I were the only one, I simply could not do it.

I rise in opposition to this committee report, not out of any usual sense of enjoyment of political battle, which over many years I have grown to enjoy in this assembly, but I rise in this debate more with a note of sadness than anything else.

The sadness is because I do believe that as a country we had an opportunity to accomplish what I thought was the goal of Meech Lake, namely, to bring Quebec into the Constitution and get Quebec’s signature on the 1982 Constitution. I thought we could do it without making it a divisive document. I still believe we could have done that, but regretfully, we did not do it.

The goal of Meech Lake was not complicated. The goal, as I understand it, was simply to get Quebec’s signature on the Constitution. Some people even refer to it as the Quebec round of constitutional talks, just as there was the aboriginal people’s round of constitutional talks, which failed. If this was the Quebec round of talks, surely that was the goal, namely, to get Quebec’s signature on the Constitution

When one thinks of what Quebec’s demands were, as I understand the demands as I read them and thought about them, they seemed to me to be quite basic.

First, it was primarily to support their demand for the survival and development of Quebec as a French-Canadian society -- I do not think anyone would quarrel with their long-stated desire to make sure that their French-Canadian society is sustained and nurtured -- to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, which presumably is what is meant by that French-Canadian culture; freedom from federal encroachment on its areas of jurisdiction through curtailed federal spending powers; a veto for Quebec on constitutional amendments; a greater ability to shape and sustain its society by a control over selection and integration of immigrants; and, finally, greater protection at the federal level through a voice in appointments to the Supreme Court.

After all, it is the Supreme Court which determines how the Constitution will affect Quebec in any future challenges.

To me, those were the kinds of demands that Quebec was laying before the first ministers and, to me, they were totally legitimate beginning points for negotiations to get its signature on that 1982 constitutional accord. They seemed to me at least to be reasonable.

You ask yourself, “Why then was the resolution of those demands done in a way that went way beyond Quebec and touched every Canadian? If those were the Quebec demands that were laid before the first ministers, why then was this so-called Quebec round expanded into areas and with some results that I and many other Canadians find truly offensive?”

Of course now, when some of us object to the way it went beyond the demands of Quebec, we are somehow painted as being anti-Quebec. What could be more ridiculous? As a matter of fact, I would probably lean more than most people towards supporting Quebec demands. It is totally nonsense to say to people who do not like the Meech Lake accord that somehow we would be writing off the opportunity to bring Quebec into the constitutional family.

We all welcome Quebec into Confederation in a formal way, although it is not as though it was not there already. I, as a native Quebecker, feel very strongly about Quebec being formally and in every kind of way part of the Canadian Constitution, but I refuse to accept the fact that this accord had to have everything which is in there now in order to get Quebec’s signature on the Constitution.

Why, for example, when declaring and accepting Quebec as a distinct society, do we allow the potential erosion of the rights of women, the disabled and our linguistic minorities? What is the connection? Why was it necessary to undermine the feasibility of major new national social programs, programs which could address the needs of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens? Why was it necessary to give every single province a veto over any future changes in key areas such as provincehood or changes in provincial or territorial boundaries? This makes future changes very difficult and certainly undemocratic.

And as Quebec is, according to the accord, a distinct society -- and I think that was agreed; the first ministers had no quarrel with that: Quebec is a distinct society -- why were our native people not included and classified also as a distinct society? Does anyone question that our native people are a distinct society? I think most of us accept that. Then why was it not in the Meech Lake accord? “Well,” members have argued, “because this is the Quebec round.” Then why, if it is the Quebec round, did they have these exclusions? That I find most offensive.

I should remind members as well, of course, that native people were not even consulted. Not only had the aboriginal talks just been a failure a month or two before the Meech Lake accord was signed, but then, as though to add insult to injury, they were not even consulted on this document, the Meech Lake accord; not at all, they were excluded and insulted.

Why, in order to bring Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family, was it necessary to treat the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in such a shabby way? What link is there between Quebec’s five basic demands and that gross insult to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon? The answer: none. There is no logical link between getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution and what those first ministers, those I1 men, did to the Yukon and to the Northwest Territories. What possible link was there?

The Prime Minister and the first ministers sat down, and I can only call it, wilfully, methodically and deliberately, with absolutely no consultation, slammed the door on any future negotiations with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in constitution-building. They just slammed the door on them: no consultation whatsoever. Worse than that, these 11 men wrote into the Meech Lake accord that they would not be able to partake in any future nation-building. This is what they did.

They said the provinces could extend their boundaries into the territories with the unanimous consent of the provinces and the federal government. No mention of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. They said that the territories could be admitted as provinces with the unanimous consent of the provinces and the federal government. Just them: every single one.

Is it not wonderful? Prince Edward Island could decide that the Northwest Territories or the Yukon cannot be admitted to Confederation as a province in the future; not today, not tomorrow, but at some point. Tell me what relationship there is between doing that to our northerners and the Quebec round and the necessity of getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution.

Also, the accord wrote into our Constitution the requirement for further constitutional conferences without representation of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, even though it gives the right of the provinces to extend their boundaries into the Yukon and into the Northwest Territories. What kind of undemocratic process are we ratifying here?

The federal government and the provinces had just finished using -- I can only use that term -- the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in attempting to negotiate aboriginal rights. They had just finished doing that the same year, a couple of months previously. They used the Northwest Territories and the Yukon because of their expertise on aboriginal rights, and then when it came time to negotiate their own future, they slammed the door on them. What kind of nation-building is that? I think that is truly offensive.

As well, the Meech Lake accord does not allow for the Yukon or the Northwest Territories to have any say in nominees for the Senate or the Supreme Court. Once again, it will perhaps be the Supreme Court that will make rulings on this Constitution, on the Meech Lake accord, vis-à-vis any kind of changes with the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. These 11 men simply turned their hacks on 75,000 Canadians north of the 60th parallel. I cannot support an accord that does that.

Prince Edward Island, as I said before, can control its future.

Previously, as I hope most members know, seven of the 10 provinces representing half of the population could determine the future. Now all 10 must agree, along with the federal government. No other province, not one, suffered this indignity when it joined Canada as a province.

The Canadian Senate, certainly not a democratic institution, at least conducted hearings north of the 60th parallel. That is certainly more than the federal government did. It made what I would call some strong recommendations. I think it is important to read at least part of those recommendations into the record. It made seven recommendations.

“1. We recommend that the transitional procedure proposed under the Constitution Amendment Act, 1987 (Meech Lake accord) for the appointment of senators from provinces be applicable to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories….” What did that have to do with getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution?

“2. We recommend that the provisions proposed by the Constitution Amendment, 1987...by which provincial governments may participate in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada be applicable to the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories….” That is straightforward.

“3. We recommend that the proposed Constitution Amendment Act, 1987...be amended so that the elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be invited to participate at all future constitutional conferences on the Constitution and the economy.

“4. We recommend that the proposed Constitution Amendment Act, 1987...be amended so that any change in the boundaries between the provinces and the territories would occur only with the consent of the territory concerned.”

I really must elaborate on that. Can you imagine writing into our Constitution that one of the western provinces can simply extend its boundary north and take unto itself territory presently belonging to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon without consultation with the Yukon or the Northwest Territories? They can simply sit down with the federal government and the other premiers and do it with absolutely no representation by the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. They can make any kind of deal they want. What a ridiculous concept of nation-building that is, how cynical a concept.

“5. We recommend that the Constitution Amendment Act, 1987….be amended so that the attainment of provincial status by the Yukon and the Northwest Territories be accomplished solely through negotiations with the federal government, subject only to the approval of the federal government and the particular territory concerned.”

I ask, why should any province have a veto right on whether or not one of the two northern territories becomes a province? Members should ask themselves that. What possible reason could there be? It is a very sad comment.

“6. We recommend that aboriginal and treaty rights and the question of self-government be added as continuing items to the agenda of constitutional conferences convened under the proposed Constitution Amendment Act....Elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as well as representatives of their aboriginal people, are to be invited as participants in relation to these issues.” In other words, let them be part of these constitutional talks.

Finally, “7. We further recommend that as the proposed...(Meech Lake accord) recognizes Quebec as a distinct society it should also recognize that the aboriginal peoples of Canada constitute distinct societies.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What happened to this report?

Mr. Laughren: Nothing happened to this report, and I would ask members to think about what is going to happen to the report of the Ontario select committee on Meech Lake. This was the Senate report. I would be happy to hear any members talk about whether those seven suggested amendments were unreasonable.

Let me ask the members another question. If, for example, the federal government had had the generosity to say to Quebec, “Your demands basically have been met through recognition as a distinct society and other things; now that we’ve done that, will you allow the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to have their demands met?” Why would Quebec say no to those very simple seven basic demands?

I will bet that Quebec was never given the option of saying yes or no to those, and I will bet that it would not have said no. I cannot think of a reason it would. Why would Quebec be concerned about whether or not the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are part of the Constitution, are provinces, keep their boundaries the way they are, have some kind of say in the appointment of senators and Supreme Court justices or are allowed to take

part in constitutional talks in the future?

I cannot think of a single reason, unless the provinces decided that this was the kind of deal that might stand them in good stead in the future. But, I ask, do we want to give those western provinces the right at some point to reach up into the Yukon or the Northwest Territories and take some land unto themselves? Is that what we want to set up as a potential for the future of this country?

You think we have had divisiveness in the past; this is creating more. It is a very, very sad comment. The answer as to why this was done to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is not a pleasant one and will not, in my opinion, sit very well when we are judged, as we certainly will be.

This is not a generous constitutional amendment. This is an amendment that some might want to describe as Senator Raymond Perrault, a Liberal, did. He said the Meech Lake accord is a “flawed tremendous achievement.” I can see why he would say that it is a tremendous achievement to get Quebec in and get its signature on the Constitution, but it is flawed. Virtually everybody who defends Meech Lake confesses that it is a flawed document and apologizes for the constitutional amendment in one way or another but then goes on to support it.

Rather than calling it a “flawed tremendous achievement,” I would call it a tremendously flawed achievement. There is a difference between a flawed tremendous achievement and a tremendously flawed achievement, and that is what I would call it.

My final comment on the effect of the Meech Lake accord on the Yukon and the Northwest Territories I would like to leave to Tony Penikett. He is the Government Leader of the Yukon. Mr. Penikett wrote a letter, I think, to all members. I will just quote the final paragraph of his letter, although his entire letter really should be part of the record. His final paragraph reads:

“Finally, I wish to assure you that we in the Yukon are as pleased as other Canadians to see national unity promoted through the signing of the Constitution by Quebec. This is a significant step for all Canadians, but it is not necessary to sacrifice the north to save Quebec. Our Constitution is not cut from a limited stock of cloth. We do not need to take from one jurisdiction in order to give to another. The inclusion of Quebec in the Canadian Constitution should not mean the exclusion of the north.”

So said Tony Penikett, and I would like to agree with him totally.

In conclusion, I very much welcome my native province of Quebec into the Canadian Constitution, but I also regret very much either the incompetence or the wilful manipulation of those 11 men who negotiated the Meech Lake accord. I believe that history, if kind to them, will comment on their incompetence, and if harsh on them, will bemoan their parochial self-interest and manipulation.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak briefly about the Meech Lake accord, which this government is so eager to have us support.

I must say that as a citizen of Canada living in Ontario I have some serious reservations and concerns about this constitutional accord.

Before I get into the main points I want to make today, I want to take this opportunity to point out that nine months have passed since the Liberals won a massive majority government, and this government has not used that time well. The government has used this time to learn how to put unpopular legislation through this House. The government has also learned how to ignore public opinion on some important issues which are facing Ontario.

A case in point is the government’s handling of the Meech Lake accord, which is supposed to bring the province of Quebec back into our Canadian family. This accord will bring Quebec back into our family, but I believe the price will be too high for Canadian women, native people, the territories and our basic democratic process.

The government was forced by the two opposition parties to hold public hearings into the Meech Lake accord. A number of individuals and organizations took this opportunity to voice their concerns about the accord’s failure to address the rights of women and native people, its shabby treatment of Canada’s territories and the creation of a distinct society in Quebec.

These groups and individuals represented their cases forcefully and eloquently. They assumed they were taking an active role in our democratic process. They thought their voices would be heard. But I am sorry to say that these groups and individuals were wrong.

They were wrong because this government had no intention of incorporating the views expressed during the public hearings into amendments that would make the Meech Lake accord acceptable to all Canadians. In other words, the public hearings were a sham. We can only believe that this government prefers to waste valuable time and money staging phoney hearings rather than relying on public input which could have resulted in innovative amendments to the Meech Lake constitutional accord.

This government’s attitude on this and other extremely important issues facing the people of Ontario saddens and sickens me. This government has decided to ignore any input, whether it is from members of the public or members of the opposition parties in this Legislature, when it comes to dealing with the Meech Lake accord.

It was this government which chose to ignore the Progressive Conservative minority opinion on constitutional amendments. This minority opinion recognized the importance of Quebec returning to the constitutional fold. It truly would represent a significant moment in Canada’s 121-year history, which we will be celebrating on Canada Day on July 1.

However, my party also pointed out that all the people of Canada and Ontario deserve to have a Constitution in which they believe they are included as full and equal partners. The Meech Lake accord in its present form does not accomplish this belief.

I have told my colleagues here in the Legislature on previous occasions that as a Canadian citizen living in Ontario, I have serious reservations and a great many concerns about this constitutional accord. I consider this to be a worrisome document which usurps the democratic process in Canada and Ontario. I am extremely uneasy because I believe the accord will have numerous unfortunate consequences for our people and for the future of this province and this country.

I applaud any move that results in Quebec rejoining our Canadian family, because this country cannot function as a whole unless all of its parts operate on an equal basis. But the Meech Lake accord, by designating Quebec as a distinct society, does not treat each province in Canada on an equal basis. That saddens and worries me a great deal. I cannot, in all good conscience, consider enshrining in our Constitution two separate groups of Canadians, or for that matter two separate Canadas. I consider this to be a step backwards and I am certainly not willing to take that step.

As Canadians, we must be sufficiently flexible and tolerant to provide for a Canada that respects anglophones and francophones equally and fairly. I cannot support bringing Quebec back into the Canadian family if that means special treatment for only one family member and not the others. Special treatment like this will result in mistrust, intolerance, jealousy and hard feelings among other members of our Canadian family. It could tear the country apart at the seams, and I am certain none of us wants that.

I must say that in my humble opinion, the Meech Lake accord has some serious flaws, in that it completely ignores women and native people in Canada. That fact alone should be proof enough to us all that this document needs considerable fine-tuning, in the form of amendments, before this province gives its stamp of approval.

Under the Meech Lake accord in its present form, the women and native people of Canada will almost cease to exist. Does this government really believe women and native people do not have a rightful place in Canadian society? Is this truly the government’s belief? Then I find this belief to be totally disagreeable and distasteful.

Another area of concern to me is that the Meech Lake accord appears to relegate Canada’s territories to the role of bystander in any future development of this country. Their role in intergovernmental relations and in determining their own future will be seriously diminished, if not wiped out altogether, under the Meech Lake accord. This accord will give every province a veto over the creation of new provinces and the extension of provincial boundaries into the territories, but it fails to provide any role for the territorial governments of Canada.

History tells us that each of Canada’s 10 provinces was given the opportunity and choice to join in the creation of a country called Canada. I sincerely believe the territories should be given the same opportunity and choice. Should they opt for provincial status at some future date, the Meech Lake accord wipes out that opportunity and choice.

The democratic process is usurped under the Meech Lake accord in its present form, in that judges are given the power to impose legislation upon provincial governments without giving the people any say in the matter. Every government enacting any piece of legislation must and should be held accountable for that legislation by the voting public. If this accord, with its vague language and ambiguous meanings, is entrenched, the courts will want not only to interpret but also to define legislative intent and consequences.

We in this Legislature were elected by the people; judges were not. We are accountable to those same people who elected us; judges are not. Judges are appointed and are officials who cannot be held accountable for their actions by the people. The purpose of a judge is to interpret laws enacted by elected representatives, like my colleagues in this Legislature, and only we are accountable to the public. It is the responsibility of politicians to enact legislation. It is certainly not the purpose, duty or responsibility of judges to do this job for us. That is not the way the system was designed.

I want to repeat the concerns I have with the Meech Lake accord. It should not have a “distinct society” clause for the province of Quebec. It should enshrine rights for Canada’s women and native people. It should strengthen the role of the territories in the areas of intergovernmental relations and in determining their own future. It should not permit judges to impose legislation upon the provinces.

These are the concerns I have heard from constituents in my riding of Simcoe East. They are also the same concerns raised, in good faith, by numerous individuals and organizations that participated in the public hearings, which the government chose to ignore.

It is the duty and responsibility of my colleagues in this Legislature and in legislatures right across this country to ensure that Canadians get an accord that does not threaten their rights, their distinctions or their freedoms. The Meech Lake accord fails in this area.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has indicated that the free trade deal is flawed and we should not agree to it. He admits the Meech Lake accord is flawed, but wants us all to deal with it and support it. Is that leadership? I say not.

Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on the Meech Lake accord.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: It gives me a good deal of pleasure to participate in this most important debate. As Minister of Citizenship, I of course have the responsibility, on behalf of the government, for implementing our multicultural strategy, and therefore I am keenly interested in the whole area of provisions within the accord dealing with our cultural communities and whatever effect that may have on our cultural communities.

As members of the House are aware, the select committee on constitutional reform presented its report last week. I am keenly aware that many of the groups that appeared before the committee represented our multicultural communities. I take this opportunity to thank those communities very much for participating, for their thoughtful comments to the committee, for their intense interest in this very important debate and, I think it is fair to say, for adding some important dimensions to the ongoing discussion and reexamination of our national destiny.

I was very struck by the comments in the report indicating, I guess, what they said was perhaps the most important observation they had; that is, during the hearings, the thing that struck them was the strong commitment of Canadians to the protection of rights and freedoms. In the words of the committee, and they jumped off the page at me: ‘Such a commitment has clearly become an essential feature of the Canadian political community. It represents a common value and aspiration, which gives vitality and meaning to Canadian citizenship.”

Again, I say that I appreciate very much the contribution the cultural groups have made to this constitutional reform process. I think it clearly reflects a shared commitment to the protection of rights and the preservation of diversity which have become so much an important part of Canada.

I want to comment specifically on three concerns that were raised by the various delegations of the multicultural community before the select committee. I think it is fair to say that they can be characterized in three major areas. One is a concern that somehow or other our multicultural society was not recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canada in the way, for example, linguistic duality was. I think the second concern that seemed to emerge was that somehow or other the “distinct society” clause in the Meech Lake accord would threaten Charter of Rights and Freedoms equality rights for groups, including the multicultural community. The third concern, I guess, was that

section 16 of the Meech Lake accord is not a guarantee of multicultural rights, but is subject to

interpretation by the courts and possible override by

section 1.

Each of us has to reach his own conclusions on those three issues that were raised. I personally have reached my own conclusions and I would like to share them with the House, first on the issue that the multicultural society is not recognized as a fundamental characteristic.

I think the select committee did a fine job of pointing out that

section 1 of the accord identifies linguistic duality as one -- not all, but one -- fundamental characteristic. It does not suggest this is the only fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. I think it is fair to say that linguistic duality was singled out in this accord because this round of constitutional reform focused on Quebec’s concern with the Constitution. I am personally satisfied that the issue of multicultural society is by no means limited by this definition and that linguistic duality is just one of many fundamental characteristics.

The second issue of concern is the concern that has been expressed that the “distinct society” clause in the Meech Lake accord threatens charter equality rights for our multicultural community. Again, I recognize that there was a different opinion expressed to the select committee, but as for me, I believe the “distinct society” clause in the accord operates within the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, in my opinion, the charter is supreme. The charter equality rights are of concern to the multicultural groups, but will not be affected by this accord.

The third issue that emerged -- again, I have my own conclusion on it and I believe it is backed by the wealth of evidence from the select committee -- is that there is a concern that

section 16 of the Meech Lake accord is not a guarantee of rights, but is subject to

interpretation by the courts and possible override by

section 1.

In my opinion, inclusion of

section 16 explicitly affirms that Quebec cannot pursue its position as a distinct society at the expense of multicultural heritage. Both

section 1 and

section 16 of the accord are interpretative and do not grant rights. Equality rights are protected under the charter and these rights are not affected by

section 1 of the accord.

Those are my feelings on those three contentious issues raised by the multicultural community during the select committee’s hearings.

Frankly, I am very appreciative of the work of the select committee in terms of it being exceptionally sensitive to this whole area of concern by our multicultural community. I am particularly heartened by four recommendations that come out of the select committee’s report that certainly provide for me, and I hope for our multicultural community which has expressed real feelings of concern, further assurance that this accord in no way detracts from its rights. I will quote those four recommendations.

The first, of course, is that the committee is recommending “that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario establish a standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs;” an important step, in my opinion.

Second, “The committee recommends that the new standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs undertake to examine the issues identified in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 as agenda items for future first ministers’ conferences on the Constitution.” The issues of concern that were raised by our multicultural community will, as I say, be put on the agenda of the first ministers’ conferences.

The third recommendation of importance to our multicultural community is, “The committee further recommends that the new standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs begin the investigation of the following issues, and that they be included on the agenda of future first ministers’ conferences on the Constitution.” Multiculturalism is the first issue raised there.

Last, and perhaps most important, is recommendation 9.

I know the members are familiar with it, but I will repeat this recommendation because it is important to the concerns of our multicultural community, “The committee recommends that following the ratification of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, the Senate, the House of Commons and all provincial legislatures consider an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to elaborate the concept of ‘fundamental characteristics’ so as to reflect the full spectrum of Canadian society and that such an amendment be...a recognition that our multicultural heritage and Canada’s commitment to equal respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures that shape our society constitute a fundamental characteristic of Canada.”

I believe these recommendations indicate strong support for the concerns raised by our cultural groups at the hearings. They reflect, in my opinion, the adoption of a vision of Canada as encompassing a diversity of cultures and lifestyles, all of which should be equally recognized and protected.

With these strong recommendations of the report in hand, and also important, with Quebec as an active participant, I believe we can look forward to the future enhancement of rights and freedoms and the preservation of cultural diversity in this country through the vehicle of ongoing constitutional reform.

As Minister of Citizenship, I remain totally committed to the further promotion of multiculturalism through our multicultural strategy and through working with this ongoing constitutional reform. I hope our multicultural communities feel comforted that, first, they are protected; and second, their concerns have been listened to in, I think, the fine work of our select committee and reflected in its recommendations.

Mr. South: It gives me great pleasure today to speak in support of the Meech Lake accord. I ask the members of the House to think of our Constitution as being very organic and a growing thing.

The accord fundamentally -- its most important point -- brings Quebec into the Constitution. It brings Quebec fully in as an active partner in Canada. Perhaps the next round will be about women’s rights, minority rights and the rights of our founding people.

I believe we have always existed as Canadians. It is not that Canada is logical. When we think of a mass of land stretching to three oceans and covering over 4,000 miles, with a climate that ranges from benign to very hostile and with a great variety of ethnic groups, there is nothing very logical about it. It would be more logical and reasonable for us to join the United States and be Americans, but our forefathers believed we were Canadians and that Canada had a destiny on this continent of North America which was different from that of our neighbour to the south.

Saying we are different from our southern cousins is not to say that we are right and they are wrong, that we are good and they are bad, but that we are Canadians and we are different.

When we think of this accord and that it may change our Constitution, we worry that it is not perfect. Many years ago, I entered into a marriage contract which in the light of present-day knowledge is not perfect. Some members in this House who are as old as I am may remember that old phrase “love, honour and obey.” Many feminists today find that phrase very objectionable and they would say that old marriage contract, that old marriage accord, was flawed. Yet many of us made it work; many did not make it work. But I say that even with a perfect accord, a perfect Constitution, those who do not want it to work will see that it does not work.

I believe this country will continue to exist as long as the majority of us believe in it. I do not care how perfect our Constitution is. When the majority of Canadians cease to believe in themselves as Canadians with a separate destiny, then this country will no longer exist.

For many of us, the mystique and the gobbledegook of the legal jargon that forms contracts or Constitutions such as this just confounds us. We have many legal experts who say the accord is a good document for Canada. We likely have an equal number who say it will destroy Canada.

I believe the political opportunists, the mean-spirited among us, will do their best to take advantage of any document, including this one, but I personally believe in the future. I believe we will continue to exist as Canadians and take the best part of this accord in our Constitution.

If we say this accord is flawed, do any of us believe the British North America Act was perfect? How much consultation was there in the formation of the British North America Act? Here was

an act that formed a new country and was formulated by a foreign country and for the first 100 years or more of its existence was interpreted by a foreign country, and often not to the advantage of the captive party to the agreement, that being Canada. I believe the decisions which were frequently rendered in the House of Lords in England were really to the detriment of a strong central Canada; so we had a flawed document and we had a prejudiced group that was interpreting that document, yet Canada exists today. Canada exists today because of the will of Canadians, because Canadians want it to exist.

I would like the members to reflect on our past. I am sure all of us can point to mistakes in our past, things we have done which we ought not to have done and things we should have done which we did not do. We are part of our history, we are part of our past and we are Canadians. Fifty years ago I was proud to be a Canadian and today I am proud to be a Canadian; yet I believe our country today is a much better place, a more perfect society than we were then.

I wish to emphasize how organic this Constitution is and that this accord is merely one step along the way to the destiny which we are fulfilling on the North American continent. We have survived the past, not because of the perfection of the documents or the contracts that bound us together as a nation, but because our forebears willed it and worked at it.

I say to all of us, let us embrace the complexity and the challenge of the accord and have faith and trust in ourselves as Canadians. We have had a great past, and I believe we will have a richer and better future. We are Canadians and we are here to stay.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to join other members of this House in congratulating the member for York North (Mr. Beer) and the members of the select committee on constitutional reform for the report they have laid before this Legislature. I consider it a great privilege to speak in favour of the Meech Lake accord and later today to join so many others to pass the report presented by the committee and the resolution presented by the Premier.

It was my great privilege in opposition to speak and vote favourably in the Constitution debate of May 1980. Unfortunately, the Constitution of 1982 failed to achieve the complete unity of Canada.

One of the fundamental reasons I decided to run for office in this great province as a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario was that the leader of the government in power in 1977 was silent on events that began in 1976 in our sister province of Quebec. The government of that province had the avowed intention of leading that province out of Confederation. The leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario spoke up in favour of Canada at the annual convention early in 1977. At that convention, I decided to cast my lot with the Liberal Party and seek the seat being vacated on June 9, 1977, by Jack Spence, then member for Essex-Kent.

My leader today speaks for the government of Ontario and he speaks positively for the future of this Canada and the place we hope Quebec will take in our Canada.

On a personal note, I am pleased to point out that on my mother’s side of the family, my late mother traced her family back to one of the great families in Quebec. My mother’s grandmother was Julia Anna Le Moyne, born in Quebec in 1820, second wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Lionel Kirwan Fitzgerald. She died in 1878 at Simcoe, Ontario. The Le Moyne family has been traced back to Jean Le Moyne, who was born in 1634 or 1640 at Pitres, France. He and his brother Pierre arrived in Quebec in 1655.

If you visit the city of New Orleans, as I did in 1985, you will see a statue of Jean Baptiste Le Moyne, who is credited with being the discoverer and founder of Canada South and the city of New Orleans. There is a street in the French quarter called Le Moyne.

My claim to French ancestry goes back five generations and the blood lines are long since diluted. What is important is the fact that my family recognizes a distinct pull out of the past history of this great country from one of the founding families who lived in one of the four founding provinces which came together in 1867.

My great-great-grandfather on my father’s side, William McGuigan, was born in county Antrim in Northern Ireland and his wife, Mary McGregor, was born in the same year at Annet Glen in Scotland. These people arrived in Pennsylvania in 1832 and in the hamlet of Buckhorn, later renamed Cedar Springs about 1838. Our family predates Confederation and I hope will post-date a more perfect Confederation in Canada.

It is fundamental to me, and I believe to most of the people of this great province, that this Confederation shall not fracture. The possibility that Canada would fracture is a possibility that I find very difficult to accept. This Canada of ours has a history that is unique in the history of the world.

I must confess at this point that I am an avowed nationalist. I point out that Canada’s home territory has never been scarred and violated by international war nor by civil war. Our people have participated in international war, but our lands have never been scarred by international war. More important, they have never been torn apart by civil war. Civil war destroys the very soul of a nation. We have never been scarred by being a ruler over another country. The ruler, I submit, suffers the greater harm to his or her soul than do the ruled. We have never tried in Canada to impose a melting-pot society on the people of the world who have come to call Canada “My Canada.”

It is worth noting that in my riding of Essex-Kent, and more particularly in Kent, the various clubs established by immigrant Canadians in the 1930s and the 1940s are now closing because the later generations have dropped the hyphen from their citizenship. While they have dropped the hyphen, they still retain the rich culture and tradition that has enriched the lives of all of us.

I point out that there is a large population of French background, many of whom are francophones, in the riding of Essex-Kent, particularly in the municipalities bordering Lake St. Clair. On the streets of Pointe-aux-Roches you will hear French spoken as the language of social and commercial interchange. The town of Belle River and the adjoining townships boast a rich French culture and heritage. We in Canada have never been prisoners of a particular ideology. We have embraced a mixed economy because such an economy fits our northern climate, our northern geography and our northern soul.

I believe the accord fits Canada of the late 1980s. I do not believe that the accord will stand for all time any more than the Constitution Act of 1791 and the bundle of acts that made up the British North America Act of 1867 stood for all time. This country, because of its unique background, has the flexibility, it has the character and it has the respect of the democratic process that will accommodate the changes that will undoubtedly be needed in the future.

Our parliamentary democracy differs fundamentally from the republican system of democracy. Under our system, members of the House of Commons or legislatures of this country offer themselves as representatives and as members of particular political parties. Very few ever run or are elected as independent members. Party policies under our system are based on policies which are believed to be in the best interests of the province or of Canada.

In the republic with which we share this continent, individual members of the Congress represent the narrow interests of their constituents and they form coalitions with other interest groups so that too often the Congress becomes a collection of powerful economic interests.

I believe today, as it was in 1867, that Canada shall not fracture and be absorbed into a culture and a republic which we have always seen as a good neighbour, a friendly and strong ally and as a great trading partner, but nevertheless, a culture and a system which we find foreign to our culture, our history and our ideals.

I believe the acceptance by this Legislature of the resolution before us will result in our Confederation taking a step forward. I do not believe that we in this House or in the other legislatures or in the House of Commons should be so egotistical as to think we have the ultimate wisdom, that only we can forge the perfect Confederation. I believe perfection will be attained by other Canadians at some other time, just as we are improving our Constitution agreements of 1867 and 1981.

I urge all members to support the resolution before us in the hope and confidence that Canada will never fracture.

Mr. McGuinty: The issue of Meech Lake is one which impresses upon us the seriousness of some of the business we are up to in this House. I think that each one in his or her own way has agonized and undergone soul-searching on this matter. I think it is an issue which strikes a responsive chord in all of us, for it deals with a vision of Canada, a vision of the kind of country we will pass on to our children and to theirs.

There is an old principle which maintains that our knowledge and understanding in whatever area are conditioned always by the point of view of the observer, and so it is. I have lived in the shadow of Quebec and within Quebec for much of my life and that experience conditioned my view, initially, of the accord.

I recall Quebec in the days of René Lévesque, a man of happy memory and I think perhaps the most honest man in my experience in Canadian politics. My initial reaction to the accord was influenced accordingly. Very frankly, my first

interpretation of it was as an effect of Quebec intimidation of the rest of Canada, and I looked at the accord with some concern and some suspicion.

As a member of the select committee on constitutional reform, at least as a part-time fill-in, and as one who examined most of the briefs which were submitted by so many concerned and thoughtful groups and individuals, I was deeply concerned and shared some of their concerns. I was concerned about the situation of the anglophone population within Quebec and the francophone population without. I was concerned by the problems put forth by native groups and by women. I was concerned about the spectre of balkanizing Canada, about the possible serious harmful implications of the distinct society and about the phrase “national objectives” with regard to federal grants.

I discussed these matters with a lot of people. With my brief experience with the constitutional reform committee, two presentations in particular stood out. One was from J. W. Pickersgill, a man well known for his wide, extensive experience in constitutional matters. Another was from an old colleague, Gordon Robertson, former clerk of the Privy Council. I think between them they probably had 70 or 75 years experience in dealing with constitutional issues.

I recall vividly that Mr. Robertson began his brief by stating that in his view perhaps the Meech Lake accord had some warts but was basically sound. I was presumptuous enough to take issue with the imagery used and respectfully suggested that a wart is something which appears only on the surface of the body, a cosmetic thing that can be removed; it does not influence the wellbeing of the body as a whole.

Like many of my colleagues of whatever party, I read, thought, discussed and agonized long and hard about this matter, and when the report was brought to us a few days ago, I reviewed it, analysed it and discussed it. I read it, interpreted it and reacted to it in the context of I think three basic principles, fundamental principles which politicians should bear in mind.

First, politics is not a science. It does not have the scientific attribute of certainty and predictability but rather politics is an art. Politics is the art of the possible. I think the accord embodies what is possible here and now in the context of the Canadian scene as it is at this time.

The second principle: Politics is a game but it is a game to be played by idealists without illusions, and politicians who operate only in terms of the pragmatic, from the here and now, do the art of politics a great disservice. Whatever idealistic views we have about the way we would like things to be, we must reconcile those ideals with a frank, realistic recognition of the situation at hand. All of us share idealistic views and notions about the things we would like to be but we must reconcile our ideals with a frank and realistic appraisal and acceptance of what is possible in the practical order here and now.

Finally, a third principle: In politics we must be stimulated by vision, by hope and by faith, not merely by pragmatic concern for the need to jump from ice floe to ice floe as they come along; and faith is indispensable -- adjunct to vision -- faith in the desire and ability of Canadians in years to come to refine further and perfect that which is not engraved in stone but is there to be refined and further perfected in the light of experience.

In this regard, the recommendations which are an integral part of our report are geared to take in the kind of concerns that bothered me for some time. It is probable that in the life of this government we will deal with no other matter of such significance. We are proud of the leadership which the Premier has provided with regard to this matter and I am proud of my colleagues who have done an outstanding job in bringing this resolution to us. I am delighted to support it.

Mr. Sterling: First of all, I want to thank the members of the committee for their long and arduous work with regard to the Meech Lake accord, particularly the chairman, the member for York North. I want to also thank my two colleagues, the member for Parry Sound {Mr. Eves) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who kept us well informed of the committee’s work. I did have the opportunity of sitting on that committee from time to time and listened to a number of the presentations to that committee. However, I believe its task was an impossible one.

I would like to comment briefly on the method by which the Meech Lake accord was decided, and in particular the conditions under which the committee was placed with regard to dealing with the ratification process of the Meech Lake accord. One of the conditions which comes out very clearly to one is that if any changes were proposed to the substance of the amendments, then each Legislature, even if it had passed an earlier version, would have to do so again. So the committee was faced with what I believe was an impossible task, whereby it was being continually reminded of a significant number of flaws with regard to this accord but was given no room in order to move.

I would have liked our province and our Premier to have taken an enlightened approach to this particular process. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) in particular, I think, outlined the problem with the democratic process which this Meech Lake accord went against so strongly. What I would have liked to have seen is some imagination on the part of our province in addressing the restrictions that were placed upon the ratification of the Meech Lake accord.

I would have liked some Premier, or even our Prime Minister, to have called together all of the legislators in our country -- be they federal, be they provincial -- to talk about the clearly recognized faults of this deal. Unfortunately, we did not have that kind of leadership. The 11 stuck together. They said: “We’re not going to consider any kind of amendment. Come hell or high water, either we will vote yes or we will vote no.”

I see this Meech Lake accord as a weighing of the positives versus the negatives, as many of the members have pointed out before. Where I start out from with regard to this is the whole point of bringing Quebec into the Constitution, because this is purely a symbolic gesture on our part. Quebec is legally a part of the Constitution of Canada today; it was in 1982, as it was in 1867.

I have had the privilege of sitting at the constitutional table with the Premier of a province when I served in the executive council or the cabinet of Ontario. Quebec was at that table at that time and has continued to be at that table. Quebec spoke at that table at that time and has continued to speak at constitutional conferences. The only difference between Quebec and the rest of the provinces was that Quebec never cast its vote. All it had to do was raise its hand and that would have effected what in fact the Meech Lake accord is trying to effect here.

So in weighing the positives and negatives, we have come to the situation where we are putting the positive of symbolically having Quebec enter into our Constitution versus many of the other problems.

I pointed out the irony of the present situation in my previous speech on the Meech Lake accord; that is, in order for the Meech Lake amendments to be lawfully adopted, we will need the signature of Quebec. Thus, Quebec will have to act according to the Constitution, which it claims not to be subject to, in order to become a party to it. That is the conundrum that Quebec and the rest of Canada find themselves in. Therefore, the signature of Quebec is a symbolic gesture only. It is important -- I do not lessen the importance of it -- but we must also look to the many negatives that were so clearly outlined to the committee in many of the briefs and in reading over the accord.

I want to point to the report itself. I realize there was a great deal of work and I realize the restraints under which the committee was placed. In essence, what the report says to me -- and I have had the opportunity to read it through -- is: “The Meech Lake accord is badly flawed, but we will support it. Now, let’s get on with reversing just about everything in the deal, save and except bringing Quebec into the Constitution.” That is not satisfactory to me. This accord is bad in a number of aspects which I find almost overwhelming.

First, it encourages provinces to opt out of rather than into social programs introduced by the federal government. It compensates provinces for going out on their own and bringing in different social programs, different social structures across the provinces in our country. I believe there should be a standard that is set for all our Canadian citizens and there should not be different standards across our country in certain social areas.

Second, I believe that the accord is grossly unfair to the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. They cannot nominate judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, as every other province can. They cannot nominate people to sit in the Senate of Canada. The last point, and most important, is that their aspirations for provincial status are virtually lost for ever, as this kind of creation of a new province requires unanimous consent of all provinces before a new province is created.

Third, I believe Senate reform will be almost impossible. There is a real danger within the halfhearted change to the present structure that an undesigned mandate will be developed by provincial senators, who will take up seats in Ottawa and believe that they have an elected mandate rather than that they have been appointed to that body.

Fourth, I believe there are legitimate and genuine concerns that have been raised regarding aboriginal and women’s rights. Those rights and those parts of the charter which will be infringed by the accord should be addressed before this constitutional change is made.

Last, and I think most important for me, is that I believe this accord further weakens our central government. I believe not only have we further weakened our government by what we have done in the accord but we have upset our historical balance of negotiations between the provinces and our federal government. We have further strengthened the hands of our provincial premiers in future constitutional negotiations.

I have not come easily to the conclusion to vote against the resolution which is before us today. The symbolic inclusion of the province of Quebec in our Constitution is a somewhat overwhelming argument in favour of the accord. But I must admit that in the past weeks, I have decided that I should vote against this Meech Lake accord on the basis of what is happening in Ontario today. This relates to this province’s reaction to a federal government initiative which is the focus of great political attention in our country; I am, of course, talking about our free trade deal.

We apparently have in this country the ability of one Premier to try or apparently attempt to scupper or foul the will of our federal government in an area of jurisdiction which I feel and many other countries feel, and I believe every thinking Canadian feels, should be the jurisdiction of our federal government. Surely, our federal government must have the power to negotiate and implement international treaties dealing with trade. Yet we have a Premier who is attempting to use his powers to go against the will of our duly elected federal government.

Regardless of the position members may take on our free trade agreement, whether they are for it or against it, I ask them only to consider what other countries must be looking at when they look at Canada. They are saying, “You have a federal government which we thought could make a deal, but you have a Premier, representing one tenth of the country or one third of the country, whichever way you want to look at it, population- or province-wise, saying he is going to stop the right of the federal government to make a deal.”

I look back to the historical context and my understanding of what happened in the past when premiers and our federal government differed on different issues. In the past, basically what has happened with regard to that whole matter, when a Premier of our province and the Prime Minister of our country differed on issues, is that the Premier of our province would yield to the will of our federal government and say, “We disagree with you, Prime Minister, but you are the Prime Minister of our country and therefore we will support you in the final analysis.”

Yet we seem to have, as exhibited in our very own province on the free trade issue, a situation where we are now having not only what I consider individual separatist tendencies issued by the province of Quebec, but also the same kind of individual action on the part of the province of Ontario by this Premier sitting across from us here today.

Therefore, in the final analysis, this accord -- and no one has ever challenged this particular statement -- further strengthens our provinces to the detriment of our federal government’s powers. My concern and my belief is that Canada is fast becoming ungovernable. I believe this accord will lead to greater discord in the future rather than accord and unity among the other provinces and areas of our country.

Let me finally say that I want to thank my leader, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), for allowing our caucus to vote as our will should see it. I believe and he believes that the Constitution is a matter which will live far beyond any of our political careers in this Legislature. It is a matter that does not require party unanimity, and I thank him for the opportunity of voting freely on this issue.

I also congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party for allowing members of his caucus to vote as they see fit with regard to this issue.

I do understand that the Premier has dictated to his caucus that he wants unanimous consent, unanimity with regard to the voting of the Liberal government and back-benchers on this issue. I do not agree with that particular position by the Premier. I think it is not a sign of strength; it is a sign of weakness. I believe that on certain issues, and I hope that the media will see this particular issue as one of them, each and every individual member should vote according to his conscience and his constituents’ wishes.

I would like to say, finally, that should some Liberal members decide to come into this Legislature and vote according to their conscience against this Meech Lake accord, I would like to congratulate them in advance, because they take a much greater risk than I do or members of the New Democratic Party do in taking such a stance. I want to congratulate them on their courage, because the consequences to them will be much greater than they would be to any one member of the opposition parties.

It is with some regret that I will vote against the Meech Lake accord, because I think the symbolic inclusion of Quebec is important. But we cannot do it with regard to this badly flawed deal, a deal which I believe will lead to a detrimental situation in our governing of Canada in the future. Therefore, I will be saying no to the report and no to the resolution supporting the Meech Lake accord.

Mr. Cordiano: I rise as a member who sat on the committee on constitutional reform over the last five or six months that we have been meeting as a committee. I see some of my colleagues who sat with me on that committee here today and I would like to congratulate them on the work that they did and to let them know how pleased I was to work with them over the past five to six months.

We truly embarked on a journey when we started this process. Some have said that we may very well be able to go off and teach constitutional law. I doubt that, of course, but certainly I would say we approached this in the first stages not knowing much about the inner workings of constitutional law, and I say this to you, Madam Speaker, who was also a member of the committee and is learned in the law as well.

Certainly we discovered that as far as constitutions are concerned, they are very complex documents. At the same time, we also discovered that constitutions are now living and breathing documents and they should be that. They should become more accessible to people, more easily discernible to people.

We have attempted to stress in our report that we now believe all Canadians must play a role in shaping our constitutional makeup, in shaping the reforms, the amendments that we bring to the Constitution which help to determine the view or the vision of the country. I believe we have pointed this out in our committee report because it is certainly one of the key aspects of the entire hearings process that we had.

We soon discovered that the process was somehow in need of repair, that the process which had worked over the last 120-or-some-odd years perhaps was not suitable to today’s needs. Certainly there is a place of paramountcy for executive federalism. The premiers and the Prime Minister of the country inevitably need to sit down and to talk about the pressing concerns, be they constitutional or economic or otherwise.

But I believe that the people of our country have now said to us very clearly that there is a place for the individual to sit at the table, to bring his or her concerns before legislators. We have recommended that this Legislative Assembly have a standing committee to look into matters of a constitutional nature with a view to further constitutional reform.

We have also recommended that this committee look at constitutional matters across the country on an intergovernmental basis. I believe that is an important first step to including a wide variety of people in the process.

Throughout our hearings, we heard from a wide variety of people. The hearings were open and accessible. We sat for days additional to those we were granted initially because we had need to hear from many people. We gave them an opportunity to come before the committee; we did not cut them off at a too unreasonable length of time. Of course, the committee hearings were very long.

I would like to get to what I believe is the heart and soul of the report we made. Before I do that, I would like to point out one other viewpoint which I think is essential in all of this. I heard some of my colleagues speak yesterday on this matter.

The member for Nipissing said he rejected the vision of the country set out by the former Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He said he did not believe his vision was one which squared with the reality of Canada today and he did not believe in bilingualism. One of the reasons he supported the Meech Lake accord was the fact that there is a new reality and that this reality was contained within the Meech Lake accord.

On the role of parliament and legislatures, it states, “The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristics of Canada referred to in paragraph (1)(

a) is affirmed.”

That clearly states that it is the role of the parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve that French fact, that French minority outside of Quebec. Consequently, the Meech Lake accord takes us one step further in that concept of dualism in this country.

I believe, however, that there are many other important features, other fundamental characteristics which have not been clearly indicated or clearly spelled out in the Meech Lake accord. I think our committee has grappled with that, and it really brings us to the crux of the report we have before us and the report we are considering. That has to do with the whole question of recommendation 9. I would like to spend a little time on that now.

To me, this is a very, very important feature of what we are recommending. It was important enough to make this a resolution of the Legislature. Once we pass this report, recommendation 9, along with recommendation 10 on the aboriginal question, become resolutions of this Legislative Assembly. We are sending a clear signal right across the country that this Legislative Assembly firmly believes in the concepts stated within these two recommendations.

I would like to talk about recommendation 9 for a while and why I think it is absolutely crucial that we consider this in the future. Recommendation 9 in our report, as I have stated, deals with the concept of fundamental characteristics in addition to the one elaborated on in the Meech Lake accord.

It calls for “a recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada; a recognition that our multicultural heritage and Canada’s commitment to equal respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures that shape our society constitute a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and a recognition that the commitment to the protection and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.”

These are the three fundamental features of this recommendation. I use that word “fundamental” because I believe that if we are to proceed with future agenda items, this must be one of the most important items on that list in addition to recommendation 10 which deals with the aboriginal question; these are the two essential components of our report.

The reason we arrived at recommendation 9 was that we heard from a variety of groups, as I have pointed out, ethnic groups that were represented by their various councils and women’s groups, that said to us they feared they had lost something in the Meech Lake accord, something they had essentially gained in 1982.

We grappled with this question throughout the entire period of time that we sat as a committee. It was a very difficult question. I understand that there is a minority report, and I want to say something about that very briefly later on in my remarks, but I do want to focus in on this. We said to ourselves, “This is the aspect of the accord which we have to deal with in a comprehensive way.

What we identified essentially was that

section 16, which women’s groups have said to us establishes a hierarchy of rights, must be amended or must be viewed such that it would contain sections of the charter to guarantee that equality rights would not be adversely affected by the accord.

When we discussed this among ourselves, we said: “If

section 16 is a difficult

section and it gives the perception or the notion that there might be a creation of a hierarchy of rights, then why not remove it altogether? Why not remove it and add to

section 1 of the Constitution the features of

section 16 which are important to the accord?”

Some have said these are superfluous and were added because of an extra degree of caution on the part of first ministers. Some have said that; I do not believe that. I think it was necessary to have

section 16.

On the other hand, I think it is fundamental that we include these concepts which we have spelled out in recommendation 9 with respect to fundamental characteristics. Those must be included in

section 1 of the Constitution. It is an essential feature of our Canadian existence, the reality today in this country, as we evolve and as we grow as a country. We must recognize these fundamental features. They must be recognized within our Constitution to further strengthen them, because I must tell the members that while multiculturalism is indeed recognized in

section 27 as part of an interpretative clause, I think recommendation 9 goes a lot further and says that this is a fundamental characteristic, along with these other items. That must be contained right at the beginning of the Constitution.

I believe that what our committee has done is to break new ground on this. As I said in my comments earlier, I think it has sent a signal to other jurisdictions that we have a way to approach this problem that will go some way to rectifying the difficulty that other people find with the accord.

I could go on, and I would like to go on, but due to the pressures of time, I will give my other colleagues an opportunity to speak as well. I would like to conclude by saying that it was a real challenge and an interesting feature of life around this parliament to work on a committee that had to deal with a question that was of real paramountcy and importance to the country.

M. Poirier : Madame la Présidente, à

titre de Franco-Ontarien et de député de Prescott et Russell, la circonscription la plus francophone de l’Ontario, cela me fait plaisir de prendre quelques minutes pour donner mon appui aux recommandations des membres du Comité spécial de la réforme constitutionnelle.

Je m’en voudrais de ne pas d’abord féliciter mes collègues qui ont travaillé d’arrache-pied à traiter un sujet des plus délicat, des plus complexe et qui fera

partie des grands débats canadiens pour longtemps, puisque résoudre la question constitutionnelle au Canada, comme le Comité l’a recommandé, c’est un travail de longue haleine.

Il y a un mot clé que je vois là-dedans, c’est le mot «distinct». Je trouve cela intéressant parce que j’ai participé à plusieurs débats avec des collègues tant francophones qu’anglophones à travers les temps pour élaborer une définition du mot «distinct». Je trouve intéressant que, comme Canadiens, soit anglophones ou francophones, nous sommes toujours prêts à crier, à vouloir, à demander, à exiger notre distinction à l’échelle internationale comme Canadiens, mais aussi à se distinguer surtout de nos voisins du sud, nos bons amis, nos collègues américains.

Lorsqu’on parle du mot «distinct» à ce niveau-là, mes collègues canadiens sont très prêts à reconnaître qu’il est important d’être distinct, qu’il faut l’être, qu’on veut l’être, qu’on doit l’être. Je les invite à comprendre ce que ça veut dire, être distinct, pour un francophone, soit à Toronto, en Ontario, au Canada, en Amérique du Nord ou même à l’échelle internationale. Je les encourage à comprendre l’aspect positif du mot «distinct» pour la société québécoise, mais aussi, par extension, pour cette minorité francophone hors Québec à laquelle j’appartiens. Je les invite à comprendre ce défi, à l’accepter, et à comprendre que, puisque le Québec est distinct, ça rend le Canada distinct.

Cet aspect-là, les Canadiens l’acceptent parce qu’ils veulent comprendre, justement, qu’à l’échelle du Canada, une confédération, de par sa nature, c’est difficile à administrer quand on a dix provinces, mais aussi deux territoires, qu’il ne faut pas oublier ; que de faire une confédération, c’est un défi vraiment spécial que les Canadiens relèvent depuis déjà plus de 100 ans et qu’ils seront appelés à relever de façon constante à travers les temps.

Ce n’est pas parce que nous avons les recommandations d’un comité, ce n’est pas parce que nous sommes sur le point de voter l’amendement de la constitution que nous allons régler tous les problèmes. Mais il faut mettre de l’eau dans notre vin et comprendre que si l’on veut que le Canada reste un pays fort, différent des autres, spécial pour nous, spécial à tous les niveaux, il va falloir accepter l’entente du lac Meech.

Je remarque ce qui s’est passé récemment en Alberta et en Saskatchewan. J’espère fortement qu’une fois le nouvel accord en place, ratifié par l’Ontario et toutes les autres provinces, je l’espère, ce genre de situations ne seront plus tolérées ; que l’on comprendra que d’être francophone, Franco-Canadien, c’est de l’être d’une mer à l’autre et non seulement au Québec, c’est de se sentir chez soi dans tous les coins du Canada, comme nos collègues anglophones ont le droit de se sentir canadiens dans tous les coins du Canada.

En 1988, 19 ans après l’adoption de la

Loi sur les langues officielles du Canada, il y a toujours le même débat : Que veulent les francophones ? Que veut le Québec ? Quelle est la position des francophones au sein du Canada, au sein du Québec ? Mais pourquoi font-ils des revendications ? Pourquoi veulent-ils être distincts ?

On a beaucoup de patience, on aime expliquer, on aime faire comprendre ; mais pour que moi et les six millions d’autres francophones au Canada puissions nous sentir chez nous au sein du Canada, il est important que des modifications à une telle entente constitutionnelle puissent être réalisées afin de penser à un avenir positif, afin de penser comme Canadiens globalement, afin de voir à ce que notre beau pays puisse voir sa réalisation constitutionnelle s’élaborer dans le bon sens.

I ask Canadians to consider why we want to be distinct as Canadians and what makes us distinct across the nation and across the world, but also distinct from our American neighbours. How important is it for us Canadians to be distinct? I think it is very highly important. What is the nature of the distinct character that Canadians have that makes us a country? It is, among other things, our two languages and our different cultures.

Madame la Présidente, je vous remercie.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure indeed to rise and participate in what I think is a very significant debate and day in the history of the Ontario Legislature. It has been my pleasure to have served on the select committee on constitutional reform with 10 other members of this Legislature for several months. Although we are not obviously all from the same political party, I think we have approached our task in a very co-operative and meaningful way. We have not always agreed, nor did I suspect that we would from the outset.

Constitutional reform, unfortunately, is not something that creates a great deal of fervour in the public or public interest. Yet over a space of time, I suppose, it has a very significant impact not only upon existing Canadians but also upon future generations of Canadians. I think it was with that onerous responsibility that committee members undertook their very important task several months ago.

I want to say at the outset that I was somewhat surprised, pleasantly surprised, by the extremely capable and efficient manner in which the chairman of the committee handled the committee throughout. I say that not because I am belittling his capabilities, but because, after all, he has been around here a little shorter time than some of the rest of us. I must compliment him on the extremely fair and orderly fashion in which he conducted our hearings and our deliberations.

I would also like to pay note especially to my colleagues to my right, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). I thought at one point in the deliberations in camera that the member for Hamilton West should perhaps receive an honorary bachelor of laws degree from some law school somewhere because he certainly impressed me with his very succinct and to-the-point knowledge, which I wish sometimes members of my own profession would display more on occasion.

We had some very frank and open discussions, Madam Speaker, as you are well aware, being one of the committee members yourself, especially during the in camera session. It is unfortunate, I suppose, that more people were not able to hear our deliberations, but I think our very open and frank discussions about the accord and the recommendations as to how it could perhaps be improved upon or improved upon in the future were very open, nonpartisan and interesting, to say the least.

I do not think there is any place for partisan politics in amending the Constitution of one’s country. I know there are some, including our Premier and our Prime Minister who perhaps disagree with me, but I beg to differ. I think this is a very important issue. It is an issue in which partisan politics have absolutely no place whatsoever. I am pleased to see that there is going to be a somewhat free vote in the Legislature on this very important issue.

There are two aspects here we are talking about in this debate: We are talking about the committee’s deliberations in its report and we are talking about the government notice of motion 6 and its resolution to adopt the Meech Lake accord period, unamended, no changes recommended.

It is a very interesting dilemma in which I find myself. I am quite prepared to support the committee’s report, primarily because there is a minority opinion in the report which I had a hand in writing. I feel there are some improvements which can and should be made to the Meech Lake accord before it is approved or adopted.

If one is going to amend one’s Constitution for one’s country, I think that although nothing is perfect -- and I am sure we could never agree upon what the perfect wording for such a constitutional amendment would be -- we owe it to ourselves but, more important, to generations of future Canadians with problems we have not even anticipated yet, for many generations to come, to make this document as good a document as we can possibly make it.

If there is any ambiguity or doubt whatsoever about any aspect of the accord, I think the time to clarify it is now. The time to clarify is not after everybody approves it. Surely if you approached anything in life that way, you would be somewhat derelict in your duty. I feel it is incumbent upon us to make sure that this accord is the best document we can possibly draft at this time, and although nothing is ever perfect and nothing is ever totally clear, especially in the law and when one is interpreting one’s rights, I think we owe it to ourselves to make it as unambiguous as possible.

That, I suppose, is the essence of the minority opinion that my colleague the member for Nipissing and I drafted. I might say that I did some compromising with my colleague from Nipissing even with respect to the minority report, because it is not exactly what I would have preferred as an individual. But I am not here just representing myself; I was on the committee representing not only my constituents but also constituents, I suppose, throughout the province and other members of my caucus as well in our committee deliberations.

Our minority opinion basically requests a court reference, but I am not going to try to walk through the detail of the Meech Lake accord or even all the recommendations of the committee, because they have certainly been touched upon very eloquently by many members.

The one aspect I would like to focus in on in the few short minutes I have to participate in this debate is

section 16 and people’s rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because I think it is probably the most important document in Canada right now.

We received many presentations, from a lot of women’s groups especially but other groups as well, talking about their equality rights and whether there was even the possibility that they could be abrogated or derogated from by the wording of

section 16 of the accord. Over the course of many months of public hearings, we heard very eloquent positions being put forward by very knowledgeable people on both sides of this issue.

We had people like Professor Baines, Mary Eberts and Morris Manning, QC, giving the committee their opinions that, at the very least, there was some doubt or some ambiguity as to whether or not a hierarchy of rights was in fact created by

section 16 and whether or not these people’s rights were going to be derogated from at some future point in time, in circumstances currently unknown.

I was very impressed by the presentation Mr. Manning made to the committee. Mr. Manning has no political axe to grind. He was here as an interested Canadian and offered his very substantial legal services to the committee, if it required some assistance in drafting a court reference.

All these people who appeared before us with some concern about their rights would have preferred it if we could have passed an amendment to the Meech Lake accord. I must say, having listened to them, that would have been my first preference as well.

But realizing that politics is the art of compromise, almost all these groups and individuals, to a person, indicated to the committee that the very least the committee could do, if it was unprepared or, the political reality being such as it is, it was not possible to amend the accord outright, is ask for a court reference or an

interpretation, because we have heard from the 11 first ministers across Canada that they do not think women’s rights or anybody else’s rights, for that matter, are abrogated or derogated from by

section 16 of the accord.

If they are right, surely they have absolutely nothing to fear by asking for a court reference and having this ambiguity cleared up and having the matter clarified. If they do not happen to be right, then surely they would like to change the document before they embed it in the Canadian Constitution. I do not think that is a very unreasonable request at all. In fact, I was very impressed by the reasonableness of their argument.

I know there are others -- not the least of whom is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for the province, whom I respect a great deal -- who are of the opposite opinion; that indeed there is no hierarchy of rights created and there is no problem here at all. If that is the case, what could he possibly have against a court reference to determine that? This is the same Attorney General and the same government that did the same thing on the Education Act reference.

There is also another precedent with respect to the patriation reference that went to the Supreme Court, and while I respect the opinion of the Attorney General immensely, at the very least there is an ambiguity created in many experts’ minds as to whether these rights could possibly be derogated from at some future point. I think we owe it to ourselves and, as I said, to generations of Canadians to come to clear up that ambiguity now before we entrench this in the Constitution.

Make no mistake: It is going to be much more difficult to change the Constitution if the Meech Lake accord passes in its current form through all the legislatures in Canada and the House of Commons, because once you require unanimous agreement to do anything, it becomes a much more difficult process. I have some difficulty with that as well.

I have some difficulty with an amending formula that says everybody has to agree and that every province -- no matter how large or how small or how many people it has in it -- has a veto power, because I do not think any one province should be able to do that, especially smaller provinces. I have nothing against some of the maritime provinces.

If 130,000 people in one part of Canada can veto a future change to the Constitution or some other process, then maybe the people in Hamilton should have a veto. How many vetoes should the city of Metropolitan Toronto have? This is a democracy we are talking about. That is representation by population. I know it is not perfect, but I do not think perfection is 130,000 people in one part of Canada being able to veto the wishes of the overwhelming majority. It is a hypothetical situation that perhaps is not likely to occur, but indeed could occur if this amending formula is adopted.

I am also looking at the chairman’s press release from last Thursday. Unfortunately, I could not be here last Thursday morning when the report was introduced. I only disagree with one statement he makes when he says that after debate the Legislative Assembly of Ontario ratify the Constitution Amendment, 1987. I do not happen to agree with that statement.

I agree with ratifying or concurring with the report, but the report has many recommendations or suggested future changes in it. They are not exactly the way that I personally, as I have said, would introduce them, but they are there. I think they are very important. The future changes are extremely important.

As I said at the outset, the only way that I can even find myself voting for the report is because of the existence of the minority opinion inside it and the court reference. Having lost the fight to have the court reference included in our report, my colleague and I then introduced a couple of companion resolutions which really went about solving the same problem another way. Again, that was not my first preference either. My first preference would have been to deal with

section 16 head on and protect the rights of all Canadians in

section 16.

However, we thought that there might be some possibility of acceptance or consensus from all the committee members if we approached it from the viewpoint that if we included multicultural heritage and aboriginal rights as fundamental characteristics of Canada, then perhaps that would do away with the need for

section 16 altogether and everybody’s problems would be solved. That is the avenue that we chose to pursue.

We pursued that avenue because it was the only avenue that we thought had even a chance of success in the political reality of the arena that we were dealing in. I thank my colleagues on my right again for their support on those two companion resolutions, which were defeated by the majority of the committee in, I must say again, a very nonpartisan approach.

We have talked a lot, I think, through these months about the process and public input. I totally concur with the committee’s recommendations with respect to future public process in constitutional amendment. I think it is very unfortunate indeed that on an issue of such importance, all the premiers and the Prime Minister in effect precluded any public discussion and any meaningful public input. These people met near the end of April and the deal was done by June 3, 1987.

I believe the only legislative body in Canada which had a meaningful process during that period of time and sought advice from members of the public was Quebec. First, I do not think the period of time was nearly long enough in between the first draft and the final one. If they really wanted some meaningful input and really wanted to hear what Canadians said and the concerns that Canadians had, they would have given us the summer months to hold those public hearings, have the input and perhaps actually improve upon the product.

On future constitutional reform, again, I agree with the comments made in our committee’s report about the inclusion of the multicultural-heritage nature of Canada, the protection and preservation of the rights of all Canadians under the charter, aboriginal rights and aboriginal peoples, minority language rights and constitutional status for the territories.

I know that constitutional status for the territories is not about to do anything politically to any member of the Ontario Legislature. It would be very easy for Ontarians to merely slough off the concerns or needs of the territories. But surely there is some equity and fairness here in this system, or there should be because, in effect, if the Meech Lake accord is adopted exactly the way it is, if we want to deal with reality here, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon or any part thereof are in all probability effectively precluded from ever joining Canada as provinces.

All it is going to take in the future is one single province with an objection of any kind whatsoever and it is not going to be possible for any of these people to become Canadians in every sense of the word.

I am also somewhat concerned, and that matter is addressed in the committee’s report, about the right of people living in the territories to serve on such important bodies as the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada. Surely a Canadian is a Canadian regardless of where he or she lives. We all should have the same privileges and rights, and there should not be any second-class citizens anywhere in Canada, including those in the territories. In effect, these people are being stopped from fully participating in the process as Canadians in our country. I do not think there is any place for that in any constitutional amendment of any kind that 11 first ministers could ever agree upon.

I appreciate the need to bring the province of Quebec into the constitutional family. Believe me, that need or underlying thought in effect motivated a lot of the compromises I was prepared to make in committee. I am prepared to go that extra mile to try to accommodate our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec, understanding the very real differences that indeed they do have and trying to accommodate them. But I think I have to draw the line where there is the possibility that some Canadians’ rights will be taken away or diminished by the inclusion of demands from any group of Canadians, from any part of Canada.

There is a very real difference, in my mind, between voting for this report, as I said at the outset, and voting for adoption of the unilateral, unchanged, unamended Meech Lake accord as it exists. The committee’s report has many recommendations in it for future changes in the constitutional process and indeed to the accord and the Constitution itself. The committee’s report, as I said, also includes our minority opinion.

I believe these matters that were raised are addressed in both the report and the minority opinion as part of the report. Without them, I find it very difficult as an individual to support the Meech Lake accord in its current form, because I think that at the very least there is some ambiguity as to whether some Canadians’ rights may be affected in the future. In all good conscience, I, as a legislator, find it very difficult to vote for something that I believe in my own mind could take away some Canadians’ rights at some future point in time.

If the 11 first ministers are right in their assessment, as I said at the outset, they have absolutely nothing to fear from a court

interpretation. I know the Attorney General differs with me on this. I know he believes the issue is far too complicated to deal with in a court reference, but I was very impressed by Mr. Manning’s presentation and by his draft of the court reference which we adopted in our minority opinion, which we had hoped the majority of the committee members would have accepted.

I apologize if I have taken a few seconds too long, but I must say, in concluding, that although I will be supporting the report of the committee, I find it impossible to support the government resolution, which is a blanket endorsation of the Meech Lake accord as currently drafted, for the reasons I have outlined, without some future change or amendment to the same.

If being a Canadian means nothing else, I think it means that we are all treated equally. I believe the Meech Lake accord, as currently drafted, does not accommodate that equality, so I will be voting against the government’s resolution 6.

Mr. Breaugh: I had a chance over the last little while to participate in something that is a little unusual for a member of this assembly, that is, to sit on this select committee and to go through this process.

I began with a bias; and I have to state this: If you are a believer that the words on paper do the job in terms of giving anybody any rights, you will have great difficulty with the Meech Lake accord. I do not. I do not believe that any law is worth anything without some large measure of enforcement.

That may seem rather strange, but I am reminded of that daily. I was reminded yesterday as I watched a group of tenants who had been evicted from their homes, even though the minister says that is illegal. The facts were that the landlord put a padlock on the door and put the tenants on the street. If there is no enforcement, in my mind, for all practical purposes, there is no law. That is a harsh reality that those of us who make laws understand. It really does matter how the words are put together, but it matters more how the government enforces its laws, how the attitudes of our society deal with the laws we have.

I was reminded again. I am not an advocate of shelters for the homeless, but I saw on Front Street in Toronto a couple of weeks ago a really great shelter. It was put together for an international press corps and it operated on a 24-hour-a-day basis. It fed them and it gave them all they could have to drink. It gave them entertainment and it gave them computers. It gave them everything they wanted. I will say now that if the government wants to do that for the homeless in Toronto, I will become an advocate of shelters for the homeless.

During that same summit conference, I watched the government provide transportation for one senior citizen from the United States. I watched Ronald Reagan go by Wellesley Street with two helicopters overhead and, by my count, somewhere around 100 security officers, a complete medical unit, an ambulance at his disposal and television crews. If that is the government’s version of transportation for seniors, I am with it. But it is not, and you see how circumstances change the cases.

When a government wants to do something, it can. When it does not feel like it, no law on the books can make a government do that. I was reminded of that constantly throughout this process.

I want to talk almost exclusively about the process, because I think that some things do need to be said and that we are at a critical point in the history of the nation. We have all made fun of how the Meech Lake accord was reached -- 11 boys went to the lake for the weekend

We all know a lot of people spent a lot of time drafting things. Civil servants around the country telexed little messages back and forth. There were people who advised the ministers and all of that. But the perception remains that the traditional way of forging these agreements does not serve us well any more and can never happen again. I think people have to hear those words. This process in its current form cannot be repeated. No one will ever get away with this again. We have done this twice in recent history, where the wise leaders of a nation met and did something important and for some reason it seemed OK. It is not OK any more.

I am reasonably happy that in Ontario the first major public set of hearings was held on this agreement and that we heard, by my count in my office, more than 300 delegations of various sorts which in different ways provided an opinion to the committee. Some of it was very learned opinion from academics who believe very strongly in the power of the word; that where it is positioned in the agreement is critical; that that is the most important thing. If you advocate that, you will certainly have problems with this agreement.

If you think the exact word which is chosen and where it is positioned -- and in many of the arguments before the committee, what words were not used and where they were not included -- you are going to have difficulty with this.

I am not an advocate of that. I believe a Constitution, if it is of any value to the people in the country, is a living thing. It has a relationship to the words which are used, but there are a lot of other components involved in that as well.

During this process, I met some very wise people. I even met a good lawyer. It is the first time in my life I ever met one.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Name names.

Mr. Breaugh: Catherine MacKinnon is her name, as a matter of fact. When you send me to jail, she is getting my phone call.

I think part of what was useful about the process, and it is important, is that we got letters from people all over who had not read the accord and did not know what a Constitution was and did not care; they were “agin it.” We should read those and hear those opinions. They are valuable to us. We had a deposition from a guy who brought his own rock video; which was good, I enjoyed it.

We met some very wise people, who would probably be, in the eyes of many members, not well-educated people but who had great wisdom. I am thinking, in particular, of a number of delegations from aboriginal groups, people who, in my view, had a right to be in a rage about this, had a right to come before us and say, “We are the aboriginal people of this country and we have fought and argued and negotiated with government for more than a century now and have still not gotten our rights and our legal treaties honoured by your governments.” They had a right, in my view, to be very angry, and I was taken aback by their wisdom.

As a matter of fact, I recall that one afternoon we were discussing the Senate. That august body had made a recommendation that, I think by 1992, it really had to finish up aboriginal rights and it had to be all settled by then. We were talking to them about it. We said, “Did you think that was a good idea?” One chief said to me: “It doesn’t matter, 1992 or 1993. Our cause is just. We will persevere. We’ve argued with you this long. Whether it takes another two or three years, we will win. We will have some fairness. We will get our rights honoured. We will get our treaties honoured.” That is a man with more wisdom than most people in this chamber have.

I was reminded by another chief who came to our hearings in London that while all of us talked about our theoretical rights and whether this word belonged here or there, members of his band on his own reserve were met by police officers from Ontario and the federal government with shotguns because they were fishing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again, it was a case of the resources of a government deciding not what is right and wrong but what it is going to do, which laws it will enforce. What great violation of the national laws had occurred here? Somebody fished in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Though we would not like to think of it in this society, they did arrive with shotguns. Most of us tend to think that does not happen in Canada. Then every once in a while we will be on a picket line somewhere and we will see those same friendly Ontario Provincial Police officers who guard us here in this chamber in a different light.

Those who have not done it should try it someday. Try walking around a picket line at six o’clock in the morning with a group of men or women who are trying to establish what we would think to be their right and see how the police officer looks to you when there are 40 of you and 200 of them. See how it feels in this great, free democratic society to have surveillance cameras turned on you. It does not feel too comfortable and it does not make a hell of a lot of difference at 6 a.m. at Sandra Tea and Coffee Ltd. in Ajax whether you have a legal right to picket or not. What is real is how you are perceived and how you are received by your society.

I think we learned a great deal in the process. I think the process itself was a valuable one. Some of the people who appeared before us were young people, students who had actually read a great deal about this accord and the background and other opinions. I was amazed at how many of them brought forward a very learned opinion and were content to run the risk of putting that opinion out in public. I am not sure I would have done that when I was in university, but they did.

As I sat through the hearings, I was again impressed that there is something emerging in this country, and all of this chatter about constitutional reform is part of it. There is a sense of a national identity emerging in Canada. God forbid it will ever get out to the surface, but it is there and people are thinking a little bit about who we are and how we govern ourselves.

I am not a big fan of the Canadian Senate, but there are lots of people now who are saying, “If the Senate is going to be there, shouldn’t we stop to think about how it is constituted and how people get there?” People are saying the same kind of thing about the Supreme Court. “If the Supreme Court is going to make decisions which change the way we govern ourselves, which change dramatically overnight the kind of services that are provided to our citizens, shouldn’t we know a little bit about who these people are who sit on the Supreme Court?” That is a little different kind of notion for a Canadian to have.

We are starting now, just beginning, to think about the process. We are starting, just beginning again, to think about the ramifications of all that.

I know some are not happy with the committee’s report. As I sat in the committee room and tried to play my little role in putting it together, I knew they would not be, but I want to put on the record that I think there is something significant here. As I close, I want to put my little unhappiness together on the record this morning too.

The significant part, the part that is worth thinking about, is that we, as a committee, recognized that 11 of us could not sit in the committee room here and do this. This had to be an open process. So we went to great lengths to see that as much of it as was possible was televised around Ontario in both languages. It was not very long ago in this building when that would have been an unthinkable thought, never mind a practical reality, that there would be that much public exposure to deliberations of this kind.

I think it was worth while. At this critical juncture, if the government of Ontario takes the recommendations that are in this report and begins the next part of the process, I think we will have achieved something worth while. I believe the committee identified in its deliberations the concerns that were brought to it and said that certain things must now happen, and if they happen this Meech Lake accord is not that bad a deal.

I must get this on the record too; it is a personal thing. I have heard people say this is a miracle. I get nervous when people have these kind of apparitions. There are no miracles here. These are 11 grunts who went off to a cottage and did their job, just as we did it. That is exactly what we do. There is no miracle about it. There is no flowering of Quebec. We are not more complete Canadians today because of this accord. We are politicians doing our job, listening to what people said were legitimate concerns and trying to respond to them.

Not everybody is going to like our response. We know that. Members of my own caucus do not like the idea, and it is only a resolution of the House that will go forward on these three matters. That is how we handle constitutional matters here. We have done it twice; we will do it again this afternoon. That is how it is done. People do not like that. Some would like us actually to amend the Canadian Constitution. I did not like Brian and the boys amending the Canadian Constitution, so I am not going to do it.

I think what is appropriate is that a committee of the assembly put forward its thoughtful recommendations and we begin the process of drafting how those recommendations will actually be written into the Canadian Constitution. There should be no surprises in this. Everybody should know what we are trying to do, and we should now begin the process of identifying which word goes where and which

section gets the amendment. We addressed ourselves, in part, to some of that. As best as we could ascertain, we worked for a consensus in the committee, because the Meech Lake accord talks about how we are going to operate from here on in. It was a trial run. Could we get a consensus in the committee? Yes, it was possible.

It meant, for one thing, that we had to forgo the traditional things that members of parliament do, that is moving amendments that are not going to carry and, after you move the amendment that does not carry, you vote for the report or you shirk your responsibility totally and say: “Well, I don’t like it. Everybody else has to be the responsible person today. They can vote for this thing. I don’t want to.”

That is a bit of a risk, but I think it is a risk worth taking, I think it is a thought worth pursuing. Each of us, in a different way, struggles with the notion that we are going to be part of this process. I think this Ontario committee has laid out in rough form how the process should happen from here on in. The component parts are fairly straightforward. No deals should be cut that require a legislative committee to ratify and that is it. After this, if you want to change the Constitution, give us your ideas and thoughts and make your arguments and let us do our job, as simple as that. Let it be an open process.

I was surprised at the number of people who actually had done all of the reading and the thinking to appear in front of the committee and make a rational argument. Many of them were people who were not used to being questioned. There were many learned academics who, I am sure, rarely get students in their class challenging what they are saying. There were certainly in front