ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO / ALPHA
CORPORATION DE LA VILLE DE HEARST
TIMMINS NATIVE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO, RÉGION DE KIRKLAND LAKE
SOCIÉTÉ DES UNIVERSITAIRES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Monday 11 February 1991
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario/Alpha
Mayor Dennis Welin
Centre culturel La Ronde
Pierre Bélanger
École Secondaire Thériault
Perry James
Vic Power
Patrick Bamford
Corporation de la Ville de Hearst
Gary Whitman
Timmins Native Friendship Centre
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, région de Kirkland Lake
Société des Universiaires de langue française de l'Ontario
Evening sitting
Jeanot LeGrange
Timmins Labour Council
Services à la jeunesse de Hearst
David Wallbridge
Aboriginal Urban Alliance
Shirley O'Connor
Mushkegowuk Council
Ken Metsala
Adjournment
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO IN CONFEDERATION
Chair: Silipo, Tony
(Dovercourt NDP)
Vice-Chair: Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South NDP)
Beer, Charles (York North L)
Churley, Marilyn (Riverdale NDP)
Eves, Ernie L. (Parry Sound PC)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls NDP)
Malkowski. Gary (York East NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa Rideau L)
Wilson, Fred (Frontenac-Addington NDP)
Winninger, David (London South NDP)
Substitution: Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie NDP) for Ms
Harrington
Also taking part:
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Clerk: Manikel, Tannis
Clerk pro tem: Brown, Harold
Staff:
Kaye, Philip, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
Drummond, Alison, Research Officer, Legislative Research Office
The committee met at 1314 in the Timmins High and Vocational School, Timmins.
The Chair: I would like to call this meeting to order, please. My name is Tony Silipo. I am the Chair of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I want to welcome all of you who are here this afternoon in Timmins and point out to those who are following our proceedings through the parliamentary channel that we are, of course, resuming our hearings on Ontario in Confederation from Timmins today. This is the beginning of the second week of our hearings throughout the province which saw us last week in the communities of Kenora, Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie.
I will simply begin by introducing the members of the committee who are here with us. This is an all-party committee made up of representatives of the three parties represented in the Legislature of Ontario. From the NDP caucus we have Gary Malkowski, Gilles Bisson, who is the Vice-Chair of the committee, David Winninger, Fred Wilson, Marilyn Churley and Tony Martin. From the Liberal caucus we have Charles Beer, Yvonne O'Neill and Steven Offer. From the Conservative caucus we have Ernie Eves and Charles Harnick, and also joining us today is the member for Timiskaming, David Ramsay.
We have a full list of people to speak to us this afternoon and this evening and we are still adding some names to the list as we get additions. We will try to do our best to accommodate those people whose names we did not have before. I would like to point out, if there are people in the audience who are interested in speaking to us and who are not sure whether their names are on the list or who would like to get added to the list if we have time, there is a table up at the back of the hall. If you would let people know up there, we will try our best to add you to the list.
With that in mind, I would ask the people who are speaking to us if you could keep your comments to within 20 minutes if you are presenting on behalf of a group and 10 minutes if you are presenting on behalf of yourself. Then that will give us an opportunity to try to get through as many people as possible. We will be prepared to go a little bit beyond the time this afternoon, if need be, but we would like to try to stay as close to the time lines as possible.
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO / ALPHA
M. le Président : Je voudrais simplement dire que nous sommes contents d'être ici à Timmins aujourd'hui pour la continuation de nos audiences sur l'Ontario dans la Confédération. On va maintenant commencer avec Marius Gauthier et les autres participants qui font partie du groupe de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario / Alpha.
Please come forward, Mr Gauthier. I would just like to say that we are going to give people the option of speaking to us either from the microphones that we have set up out in the stands in the audience, or if you would prefer to come and sit at the table here with us, feel free to do that as well. We will just leave that option up to each group as we go through.
M. Gauthier : Au nom du groupe Alpha, je remercie le comité et ses membres d'avoir pris la peine et le temps de se déplacer. J'apprécie aussi le fait que je pourrai vous faire valoir nos représentations et nos doléances.
Je suis résident de la province de l'Ontario depuis un peu plus de trois ans. J'y ai oeuvré dans le domaine de l'éducation et dans le domaine juridique. Depuis ce temps je suis agent de développement de l'ACFO, section de Cochrane-Iroquois Falls. J'agis aussi à titre de coordonnateur Alpha, où il s'agit d'alphabétisation aux francophones adultes selon une méthode populaire et communautaire. Je n'ai pas éprouvé de difficultés à m'adapter, vu mon expérience et mes connaissances, mais ce qui me dépayse c'est l'omniprésence du fait anglais, notamment au niveau interne de l'administration gouvernementale. Avant d'appeler au téléphone, il faut quasiment répéter la conversation à venir en cas d'avoir à tenir une conversation d'affaires avec une personne anglophone.
L'acheminement du Canada arrive à une croisée de chemins très importante pour l'ensemble de la population canadienne. L'échec du lac Meech, les disparités régionales et sociales, la crise d'Oka, le traitement réservé aux autochtones, l'aliénation de l'Ouest, le mnouvement souverainiste au Québec, l'émergence d'un parti nationaliste québécois à Ottawa ont tendance à remettre forternent en question l'existence même du Canada. Or, l'Ontario peut et doit jouer un rôle prépondérant dans le rapprochement des différentes régions au pays.
Basée sur sa puissance économique et sa forte attraction industrielle, l'Ontario se voit moins contrainte de formuler des demandes fondamentales de changements et peut en conséquence jouer un rôle de médiateur.
Dans le rapprochement des différentes cormmunautés, à cause de la présence du demi-rnillion de francophones, de nombreux groupes rnulticulturels, d'une présence importante des communautés autochtones, l'Ontario est donc très bien placée pour signaler l'importance de maintenir des liens étroits, harmonieux et positifs parmi les différents membres de sa communauté. Nous reconnaissons les efforts que le gouvernement de l'Ontario et notre communauté ont investis, afin que les francophones se sentent partie prenante et participent à fond au développement de l'Ontario.
Je m'occupe depuis trois ans d'alphabétisation communautaire auprès des adultes francophones. Ce travail, tant pour les personnes formatrices que pour les personnes apprenantes, constitue un véritable défi de part et d'autre. Ces adultes on dû décrocher du système scolaire d'alors d'une part à cause des problèmes socioéconomiques, d'autres ont décroché parce qu'ils ne se retrouvaient pas dans le système scolaire. Or, toutes ces personnes, pendant plus de vingt à trente ans, ont essayé de survivre dans un monde conçu pour les personnes lettrées et alphabétisées.
1320
Cette situation dans une large mesure pourrait s'avérer un moindre mal s'il ne s'agissait pas du rnanque de volonté pratique et politique provinciale au niveau du bilinguisme. En effet, l'on met tout en oeuvre pour leur faire apprendre la lecture, l'écriture et le calcul dans leur langue rnaternelle, c'est-à-dire en français, mais quand ces personnes apprenantes se voient confrontées à la réalité, elles se heurtent à un monde anglophone, réalité qui les empêche de s'épanouir, de donner le meilleur d'elles-mêmes. Vu que ces gens sont des citoyens à part entière, il faudrait que l'Ontario se déclare officiellement bilingue, qu'elle s'affiche et s'affirme comme tel sans réserve ni clause « nonobstant ».
En réponse au document de consultation, nous ajoutons les commentaires suivants vis-à-vis du Québec. Le Québec est reconnu comme étant, dans les faits, une société distincte. L'Ontario n'est perdante en aucune façon que ce fait soit reconnu et que certains pouvoirs distincts soient rapatriés au Québec.
Vis-à-vis des autochtones, les communautés autochtones constituent des sociétés distinctes et devraient jouir d'un degré d'autonomie leur permettant de gérer leur présent et de determiner leur avenir.
En ce moment critique de l'histoire de notre pays, les personnes ontariennes et leur gouvernement doivent assumer et jouer un rôle de leadership dans l'évolution de ce pays.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Gauthier. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ? Monsieur Beer.
M. Beer : Merci pour la présentation que vous venez de nous faire. Je me demande si vous pourriez nous parler un peu de l'impact de la mise en vigueur de la Loi 8 dans cette region. Quels sont les aspects, peut-être toujours faibles, mais quels sont les aspects positifs jusqu'ici avec ce programme ?
M. Gauthier : Merci pour votre question. Dans notre région de Cochrane-Iroquois Falls, nous nous prévalons des dispositions de la Loi 8. Puis, nous avons un bon retour de l'Office des affaires francophones et aussi, les ministères s'y plient aux décisions de l'Offiee des affaires francophones.
Il y a un point, cependant, que je pense devrait être changé ; c'est concernant la langue interne de l'administration, je remarque, de l'Ontario. La Loi 8 ne s'applique pas à la langue interne, qui est l'anglais. Il est considéré que les documents émanant de l'administration à ses fonctionnaires, à ses employés, que c'est légal que ce soit en anglais. Je pense que ça ne devrait pas exister. Il y a une invitation que je peux faire aux gens, c'est de se servir de la Loi 8 davantage, parce que si on regarde les statistiques concernant le nombre de doléances présentées, c'est encore faible. Mais c'est une excellente loi.
Mr F. Wilson: You have to pardon me, Mr Gauthier. I have a bit of a throat problem today. Two questions actually: Could you tell me the percentage of adult francophones who are considered functionally illiterate that you deal with?
Mr Gauthier: In our place?
Mr F. Wilson: Yes.
Mr Gauthier: About 40%.
Mr F. Wilson: Is that province-wide?
Mr Gauthier: No. It is our area here.
Mr F. Wilson: You mentioned that you thought Ontario should go fully bilingual. Do you not see any other way short of official bilingualism for Ontario? You mentioned that Bill 8 was a very good piece of legislation.
Mr Gauthier: Yes.
Mr F. Wilson: Could there be something less than bilingualism that your organization would accept?
Mr Gauthier: Like in your own law?
Mr F. Wilson: Yes, something short of official bilingualism for Ontario.
Mr Gauthier: The Ontario province is not a purely bilingual province.
Mr F. Wilson: No. That is what I mean. Perhaps you did not understand me. You mentioned that you would like to see Ontario fully bilingual or officially bilingual. Are you speaking on behalf of your organization or personally on that?
Mr Gauthier: If I answer to you, I will speak for myself.
Mr F. Wilson: Okay, I will ask you again. Do you see anything short of going fully bilingual that you would be satisfied with?
Mr Gauthier: Not really.
Mr F. Wilson: You have no other ideas, nothing to expand upon?
Mr Gauthier: Not now, no.
Mr F. Wilson: Okay. Thank you.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Gauthier, for your presentation. During the last week we have heard a number of representations, all of which seem to have come to one conclusion, that the status quo for the country is no longer in the cards but rather there is some other form of Canada which is going to emerge in the ensuing months and possibly years ahead.
From your experience, could you share with us what you feel the impact would be on Franco-Ontarians in the event that there is a Canada which is certainly not the status quo as it is now but somewhat of a less united nature, something where the province of Quebec, for instance, has a greater degree of powers with respect to itself and the federal government, something that might not be shared by other provinces? Could you share with us some observations that you may have dealing with the impact that may have on the interests of Franco-Ontarians?
Mr Gauthier: If probably Quebec has more powers than now?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Mr Gauthier: No. That is for the politicians to answer. I am sorry.
M. le Président : Une dernière question.
Mr Martin: You mentioned in your brief that people as well as government must play a critical role in the development of Canada as it will evolve, and I suggest to you that we have been trying that for a while and we do not seem to be getting too far. Do you have any creative solution or answer to how people in government might get together in a way that speaks to less of this animosity that has risen and more to co-operation and moving forward?
Mr Gauthier: My only answer I have to give you is that Ontario must be bilingual.
M. Bisson : Une petite question, Monsieur Gauthier : une des difficultés sur lesquelles le monde essaie de se mettre d'accord, c'est que si on dit, comme pays, pour reconnaître les autochtones ou les francophones au Québec on a besoin de donner des pouvoirs spéciaux, jusqu'à quel point nous, en tant que province, pouvons-nous aller pour rcconnaître les autochtones et les francophones ? À quel point est-ce qu'on dit non ? Où est la limite ?
M. Gauthier : En Ontario ? À quel point vous donnez des droits ?
M. Bisson : Mais non, parce que vous avez dit dans votre rapport que vous reconnaissez que le Québec est une société qui est distincte à elle-même. Vous avez aussi reconnu que les autochtones, en même temps, doivent être reconnus comme une société distincte et qu'il faut leur donner des pouvoirs autant. La question que je pose est, puisqu'on sait qu'il y a du ressentiment en certaines parties de notre population vis-à-vis de cette question-là, jusqu'à quel point est-on capable d'aller rencontrer le milieu du chemin ? Il est où, ce milieu du chemin, à votre avis ?
M. Gauthier : Remontant sur le plan des autochtones, c'est reconnaître que les autochtones sont un peuple différent avec des coutumes différentes, avec la langue, en fin de compte -- c'est pour faire un « melting pot ». Sur le plan francophones en Ontario, je dis si les francophones se sentent bien dans la population de l'Ontario, le ressentiment, il n'y en aura pas face aux autres ethnies. Je ne peux pas le couper en... Vous faites une commission, justement, pour le savoir.
1330
M. Bisson : Non, non, on demande des idées, c'est pour ça. La question qu'on va trouver, c'est jusqu'à quel point nous comme plovince pouvons aller pour rencontrer ces besoins. La grosse question, c'est où est ce point-là ?
M. Gauthier : D'accord. Autant, c'est dessus d'autant que vraiment les anglophones soient respectés eux aussi, mais que nous, les francophones, soyions respectés aussi.
M. Bisson : Je comprends.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Gauthier. Nous avons aussi reçu d'autres mémoires de votre groupe et nous allons les noter.
MAYOR DENNIS WELIN
The Chair: I understand that Mayor Dennis Welin is with us this afternoon, and I would like to give him an opportunity to say a few words to us.
Mr Welin: It is certainly a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon to welcome this commission, which is very important to all our lives and the direction we are going to be taking over the next little while.
I guess what, first of all, I would like to say in my opening remarks is that this is a region that is very troubled by the direction this country has been taking in the last little while. It is an area that is concerned that francophone rights are under attack by many politicians from other centres that really do not recognize the sensitivity of dealing fairly and justly with the major linguistic groups in our area.
Timmins is an area that has a 47% francophone base, an area, I think, that is a good example to the rest of the province of how two major linguistic groups can work in harmony together. I think that what we have shown here is a sensitivity towards one another and that we are stronger because of it.
The francophone fact within the community is vitally important and I am very troubled by the fact that we hear people who are not showing the sensitivity that should be shown towards major linguistic groups such as that.
I am also very troubled when I hear and see people dismiss that Quebec is going to leave us automatically as a given. I think what we have here is a marriage in crisis and what we need is some very sound, sensible counselling to ensure that we find a method of holding this country of ours together.
My grandfather and my father both fought in major wars to ensure that this country be a united country, and I think it behooves us, as leaders within our communities and within our governments, to try to find a common area that we can work together on.
I do not mean that we should give in to every pressure, but we have to be sensitive to the fact that they are unique, and I am concerned that if in fact they do separate or go on a sovereignty-association route, we have to make sure that Ontario does not swing the other way, that we continue to recognize francophone services and rights, that we continue to be sensitive to the needs of the developing of our province and that we develop the type of caring province that will lead us into the 1990s and into the next century.
I think it is befitting that we are in a school today. I know that when you were in Sault Ste Marie you were in a council chamber. I think this is a much better outreach, to get into the high school and hear from young people what their concerns for this country are, because they are going to be the people who are going to have to vulcanize this country together. I can tell you that this is an area that is very concerned about dealing with the issues head on and dealing with the issues in a sensitive manner, and I wish you all the best in your deliberations.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Now there is a question, if you would be willing to take it.
Mr Malkowski: I am quite impressed by your presentation and I am in favour of the points. One question I have is regarding the need for a bill for language use in schools to ensure rights, from elementary school right up, and I am wondering, in your opinion, if this were put in place whether this would help the situation.
Mr Welin: I think the best way to encourage a bilingual country and a bilingual province is through the education system. This is a community that has a first-rate French immersion program that offers youngsters an opportunity to be able to learn the two official languages, and I think that the province could look at a better share of funding to ensure that those programs meet the real needs.
I have two sons who are both at this high school. Both have come through the French immersion system, but they find as they get to the upper levels of their education that the opportunity of selection is not as great. I think the provincial government could be well advised to look at a better funding arrangement to ensure that those needs are met, and that they are met by deeds, by actions and by the funding mechanisms that should be put in place.
Mr Martin: It is always heartening to hear somebody speak of a place where the francophone and the anglophone populace are working together in harmony so that the economy can move forward, but I am wondering if there is anything in particular that you can share that makes that happen more, maybe, here in Timmins than anyplace else. I am sure you are aware that all the people travelling the country at this point, looking for answers to the dilemma that we find ourselves in, are looking for the magic that will make Canada that dream, that value that we hold in common that will bring us all to a point of, perhaps, what you have shared with us is happening here in Timmins.
Mr Welin: I think the first thing is that you avoid extremes, that you learn to live and work in harmony. I was born and raised in this community and my dad was a miner in this community for years. It really was important that the neighbours got along and that they understood each other's differences. I think that far too often we play on what divides us rather than what unites us, and what I think unites us, the people in northeastern Ontario, is the need to ensure that we have an economy that provides jobs for our young people, that provides a meaningful outlook and quality of life. I think we have all worked together, both the francophone and the anglophone community, to ensure that.
I am not saying that there are not people who harbour certain prejudices that I think are unsavoury within a community, but I think the vast majority of people want to work together. They see that they have common goals and they see that they have common interests, and I think it is important to develop a sensitivity to one another's differences. I think one of the things that really unites us is that in the north here we have had to fight a lot of the odds: the climate, the transportation, the remoteness question. We have not had the influence of the United States on our back door as much as Sault Ste Marie has had. I think we have learned to be independent and learned to work together and I think that is an important focus we can share with other areas.
I am not interested in becoming an American. I am not interested in becoming a smaller unit within this major continental society that we live in. I am interested in the strong united area in which everybody contributes and everybody feels welcome and part of, that there should not be anybody within our communities who feels that he is not sharing and contributing a part to that society.
CENTRE CULTUREL LA RONDE
The Chair: Could I call next Jean Lanthier du Centre culturel La Ronde.
M. Lanthier : Bonjour, chers membres du comité spécial. Au nom du Centre culturel La Ronde, j'aimerais presenter notre mémoire concernant l'unité de la Confédération canadienne. Nous aimerions remercier, en premier lieu, les membres du Comité special sur le rôle de l'Ontario au sein de la Confédération, pour recevoir nos commentaires et opinions sur ce sujet qui est d'une grande importance pour l'avenir du Canada en général et de tous les Canadiens.
En même temps, nous devons déplorer le fait que nous n'avons eu que quelques jours pour preparer ce mémoire sur un sujet aussi important que l'avenir du Canada. Vu cette brève période pour sa préparation, les membres du Centre culturel La Ronde ont pu, dans un temps si limité, répondre en détails aux questions présentées dans le document et obtenir un consensus de nos membres. Conséquemment, les opinions exprimées seront de nature générale et nous espérons qu'elles permettront au comité de formuler une position qui permettra à notre province de prendre le rôle de leadership pour sauvegarder la Confédération canadienne.
Nous voulons souligner que nous croyons sincèrement que les raisons principales de ces consultations sont, au premier plan, la sauvegarde de la Confédération canadienne, et au deuxième plan, l'établissement du rôle et de la place de notre province au sein de cette Confédération.
1340
Le Centre culturel La Ronde inc est un organisme à but non lucratif qui est en existence dans la ville de Timmins depuis 1968. Le centre culturel regroupe au-delà de mille familles francophones. Le centre offre une multitude de services aux 20 000 francophones qui se situent dans notre belle ville de Timmins, reconnue comme un modèle du caractère multiculturel et linguistique du Canada. Les services qu'offre le centre à la communauté sont possibles grace aux centaines de bénévoles qui sont regroupés à l'intérieur d'une quinzaine de comités, d'une quinzaine d'employés permanents et d'une cinquantaine d'employés à temps partiel qui travaillent pour la grande famille qu'est La Ronde.
Le Centre culturel La Ronde fut fondé sur les principes que la famille est à la base de notre société, qu'elle est primordiale pour son succès et sa survie et que tous les membres de la famille y participent avec fierté et fraternité. Le centre a un budget d'opération d'au-delà d'un million de dollars. Il est autosuffisant financièrement à plus de 90%, soit par des entreprises commerciales qui sont établies dans notre centre ou par des activités sociales, culturelles et éducatives offertes aux membres et 10% par des subventions, soit du Conseil des Arts de l'Ontario, du secrétariat d'État du Canada ou d'autres ministères gouvernementaux.
La philosophie de base du centre culturel est qu'il faut participer au développement de notre communauté en partenariat avec les gouvernements et l'ensemble de la communauté, autant francophone qu'anglophone. Sur le plan financier et au niveau des services sociaux, culturels et linguistiques, la Confédération canadienne visait à rassembler les provinces qui ont toutes des caractères très distincts pour travailler en partenaires au développement de tout le Canada, aussi bien aux niveaux économique, social et culturel. Au fil des ans, grace à leur distinction prédominante, les différentes provinces ont contribué, par leur structure et programmes, à l'épanouissement et au développement économique, social et culturel du Canada.
Une famille et un pays sont deux structures qui se ressemblent beaucoup. Une famille se développe au fil des ans, un pays fait de même. À un certain moment donné du développement d'une famille, celle-ci éprouve des difficultés et des désaccords, de même pour un pays. À un certain moment donné des joies sont vécues par une famille, de même pour un pays. Les liens qui permettent à une famille aussi bien qu'à un pays de s'entraider et de s' améliorer constamment sont basés sur le respect mutuel entre les individus et l'acceptation que chaque individu puisse développer sa propre personnalité et son propre caractère dans une atmosphère de confiance, de fraternité et d'encouragement.
Nous reconnaissons trés bien qu'à l'intérieur d'une famille, chacun des membres n'aura pas nécessairement les mêmes intérêts ou les mêmes objectifs de carrière ou de développement personnel. De même, à l'intérieur d'un pays, chacune des provinces a établi différentes priorités qui répondent à sa communauté, soit au niveau économique, géographique, culturel ou linguistique.
Au fil des ans, les individus et les groupes qui avaient tendance à se regrouper sont devenus beaucoup plus individualistes dans leur philosophie et dans leur développement, au point où nous avons perdu en partie le respect les uns pour les autres et la volonté de travailler à un intérêt commun, soit la sauvegarde de notre pays, le Canada.
Nous sommes très conscients, depuis plusieurs années, de l'érosion de notre confiance et de notre respect pour nos gouvernements, aussi bien aux niveaux fédéral, provincial et municipal. Nous n'avons qu'à regarder la télévision, écouter la radio ou lire les journaux pour constater l'assaut constant et incessant qui cause la perte de crédibilité et de respect pour nos gouvernements et pour nos institutions fondamentales, les médias, les partis politiques de l'Opposition et divers groupes à intérêt particulier.
Nous déplorons ce fait. Il semble que de plus en plus le désir de travailler vers un but commun est remplacé graduellement et irrévocablement par la confrontation souvent destructive et sans base et par le manque de respect pour les droits des autres ; il semble aussi que beaucoup d'individus ou groupes ne se soucient pas. Même si la Charte des droits et libertés a pour but la protection des droits des individus, elle devrait aussi avoir comme un plus grand but la protection des droits et des désirs communs de la majorité. Est-ce que nous, ici au Canada, avons oublié les principes de base, que la confrontation constante conduira inévitablement à la division ?
Nous croyons qu'il est urgent que nos partis politiques, nos journalistes, nos institutions éducationnelles, juridiques et sociales ainsi que tous les Canadiens reconnaissent et acceptent que la perte de confiance et de respect pour nos gouvernements et nos institutions conduira inévitablement à la séparation du Canada.
Malheureusement, durant les trois années précédant la défaite de l'accord du Lac Meech, la grande majorité des Canadiens et Canadiennes n'ont pas pris l'occasion de participer à l'avenir de leur pays. Suite au Lac Meech, une province après l'autre, à notre opinion beaucoup trop tard, a commencé à faire des études sur le futur de chacune d'entre elles séparément au lieu de regarder un processus général pour la survie du Canada, peut-être bien que le processus qui est en train de se produire à l'intérieur de chaque province est le voeu général des communautés de celle-ci.
Par contre, nous ne travaillons pas à réunir ce pays mais plutôt à regarder ce que chaque province peut retirer individuellement de celui-ci, et non de ce qu'elle peut contribuer en collaboration avec les autres provinces.
Les années 90 sont des années de changements, non seulement dans notre province, mais aussi au Canada et même dans le monde entier. Tous ces changements sont occasionnés par les besoins de différents groupes, différentes provinces ou différents pays de sauvegarder ce qui leur est très cher. Tous ces changements ont pour but d'améliorer le sort de différents groupes ou peuples qui ont en général un aspect positif et bénéfique dans notre société. Nous ne pourrons échapper à la réalité que le reste du monde change très rapidement et que seul un Canada uni pourra réussir à sauvegarder ses propres intérêts. Nous ne pouvons plus maintenir le statu quo. Par contre, comme Canadiens nous devons garder comme principe fondamental que tout changement doit se faire en consultation avec tous les partenaires du pays, ayant comme objectif la réalisation et le développement d'un ensemble et non la division de celui-ci.
Quant à nous, nous reconnaissons les efforts que le gouvernement de l'Ontario et notre communauté ont investis pour que les francophones d'ici se sentent partie prenante et participante au dynamisme de l'Ontario et de l'ensemble du Canada.
Comme représentant de la communauté francophone à Timmins, le Centre culturel La Ronde appuie et encourage les efforts du gouvernement ontarien qui ont permis à la communauté francophone de se développer soit par le réseau d'un système d'éducation primaire, secondaire, collégial et nous espérons universitaire, ou par ses programmes qui sauvegardent la protection des droits linguistiques et culturels de nos citoyens. Ceci se fait en permettant au comité francophone de participer activement dans l'élaboration des programmes et dans le pouvoir décisionnel du développement de sa communauté au niveau des organismes gouvernementaux.
Nous devrons travailler à partir du principe d'une famille en acceptant de respecter chaque individu qui fait partie de celle-ci et en acceptant les distinctions qui ont permis le développement de chacun.
L'Ontario est certainement la province qui peut relier l'ensemble du Canada pour qu'il puisse continuer son cheminement dans une atmosphère de confiance, de respect et de fraternité. Le centre culturel se commet à assister activement et dans les moyens possibles à ce projet pour assurer que les efforts et les visions de nos ancêtres durant ces 124 ans depuis la Confédération soient respectés. Nos voeux les plus sincères sont que, durant les prochains mois et les prochaines années, nous tous comme Canadiens pourrons travailler ensemble et arriver à une entente mutuelle pour sauvegarder un Canada où nous sommes tous fiers et reconnaissants d'y vivre et où nous pourrons tous dire avec conviction et fierté, « C'est mon pays ».
M. le Président : Monsieur Lanthier, il y a des questions, si vous voulez bien attendre.
Mr Harnick: Sir, you have made some very interesting observations, one of which is your perception that the various levels of government are always fighting among one another and that people have lost respect for those government institutions. Do you believe that problem can best be dealt with by making the federal government more powerful or by making the provincial governments have more powers?
M. Lanthier : Je ne pense pas directement que le pouvoir décisionnel permettra de résoudre le problème comme tel. Je pense que c'est le bon vouloir des individus, un peu comme vous le faites aujourd'hui, où vous avez un comité qui est formé des trois partis principaux de la province, qui fait le tour de l'Ontario et qui regarde comment on peut s'assurer que la Confédération pourrait fonctionner, ou d'autres solutions s'il y a lieu. Je pense que, dans ce principe, ce n'est pas en divisant les pouvoirs à un niveau fédéral ou provincial ou même peut-être municipal qu'on réglera le problème, c'est en changeant l'attitude des individus.
1350
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am very moved by your brief because you have said on quite a few occasions within that presentation the word "respect." I did hear you say that you do work with anglophones as well as francophones; I think I heard you say that. You talked about the family unit. You must be doing something to bring people together. Can you talk a little bit about the kinds of things?
You did not seem to focus on the kinds of things that go on at La Centre. Do you have discussion groups? Is it all cultural activities? Could you say a little bit about how you build -- we have already asked your mayor the same question, but you seem to have an activity centre here and I would like to know what kinds of things you are engendering there. Is there anything that has helped you in the legislation that we all know as Bill 8?
M. Lanthier : Je pense que l'atmosphère qui existe entre les francophones et les anglophones dans la ville de Timmins se situe principalement dans le fait qu'on respecte l'autre langue, même si, quand on travaille avec la chambre de commerce, on va possiblement le faire en anglais bien qu'on ait des activités en français à l'intérieur des différentes activités qu'organisera la chambre de commerce au courant d'une année. Et c'est dans le principe que si on demande à M. le Maire de venir aux activités de La Ronde, lui aura la gentillesse de parler en français à la communauté. C'est dans le respect des langues et aussi de la capacité pour l'autre groupe de pouvoir effectuer certaines choses que l'on travaille.
La Loi 8 a certainement aidé ici à Timmins, surtout au niveau des organismes gouvernementaux qui desservent la ville. Par contre, il reste toujours des ameliorations à faire et on espère que les gouvernements, en consultant et en impliquant les francophones dans les processus décisionnels, pourront continuer à améliorer ces services. On ne pense pas que, depuis l'application de la Loi 8, on pourra résoudre tous les problèmes des francophones. C'est quand même un bon bout de temps qu'on vit dans un milieu anglophone mais on garde encore l'espoir que, en continuant, les gouvernements pourront ajuster les lois pour qu'elles puissent mieux répondre à la communauté francophone.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Thank you very much. You have given us some insight.
Ms Churley: I am just wondering if you and the francophone community here in Timmins have thought about the possible implications for the francophone community in Timmins, and in Ontario in general, if Quebec were to separate in some form or another. For instance, in another deputation in another place, an English-speaking person -- and I am happy to say this was rare -- did say that if Quebec were to separate, then we would not have bilingual problems any more in Ontario because, of course, it would not be an issue; it would go away. I am just wondering if you have some fears about that and if you have connections to people in Quebec, French Québécois, to talk about some of the common issues that you have as francophones.
M. Lanthier : Il est sûr que si le Québec devait se séparer du Canada, il serait beaucoup plus difficile pour les Franco-Ontariens de garder le principe de bilinguisme, parce que la majorité anglophone serait beaucoup plus grande. Par contre, la force de n'importe quelle communauté est dans le principe de faire valoir les droits de celle-ci. Autant que dans les autres provinces où il y a des francophones, comme en Saskatchewan et en Colombie-Britannique, c'est la force de la communauté et des gouvernements qui veulent bien desservir l'ensemble du pays ou de leur province qui va permettre de s'assurer que cela va continuer.
Ms Churley: My second question is, do you have any contact, either loosely or formally, with francophones in Quebec to talk about common issues?
M. Lanthier : Au niveau provincial avec l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, qui a des contacts et des rencontres assez régulièrement avec les gens du Québec -- je me souviens, j'ai participé en 1985 lors de l'Année internationale de la jeunesse -- il y a eu des échanges qui existaient à ce moment-là entre l'Ontario et le Québec pour permettre aux jeunes francophones de voir la réalité lorsqu'on est en majorité en français, ce qui est rare pour la plupart des jeunes Franco-Ontariens, la plupart des jeunes francophones, et on avait rencontré à ce moment-là à Québec même un bon groupe de jeunes. C'était intéressant qu'autant de jeunes francophones du Québec étaient venus en Ontario, à Toronto pour voir les difficultés qu'on devait vivre au jour le jour.
M. le Président : Merci, Monsieur Lanthier.
PIERRE BELANGER
M. le Président : J'appelle maintenant Pierre Bélanger.
M. Bélanger : Bonjour. Je me présente : Pierre Bélanger. Je suis professeur d'histoire à l'école secondaire Thériault. Je suis habitant du nord de l'Ontario depuis l'âge de deux ans, membre de différentes commissions et puis impliqué, si vous voulez, dans le mouvement actuel de demandes de services d'éducation en français. Je vous propose une synthèse du mémoire que je vais soumettre un petit peu plus tard au comité ; il est en train d'être dactylographié.
Vous savez qu'on n'a pas eu beaucoup de temps pour se préparer. Malgré tout, je crois qu'il y a beaucoup de personnes que je connais, que ce soit des anglophones, des autochtones ou des Franco-Ontariens qui ont considéré comme étant important de soumettre quelque chose quand même à la commission. En tout cas, l'essentiel viendra probablement plus du coeur parce que les analyses, ça prend beaucoup plus de temps.
Si j'ai bien compris le mandat de la commission -- et je crois qu'il est d'abord important de décider si l'Ontario doit jouer un rôle important dans ce qui va se jouer dans les deux prochaines années -- en tout cas, ce qui a trait aux négociations constitutionnelles dont le but est de garder, je pense, le Québec dans la Confédération. C'est ça qui est la question clé ici, que l'avenir de notre pays est en jeu. Il m'apparaît évident, c'est ce que je vais essayer de vous expliquer, que l'Ontario ne peut pas jouer un rôle qui est moindre que celui qu'avait décidé notre défunt premier ministre Peterson, je veux dire « défunt » au niveau politique.
Je pense d'abord que la tâche qui nous attend va être excessivement difficile. Si vous avez pris connaissance du rapport Allaire, vous savez que le Québec a des exigences qui sont importantes : lui donner les moyens et les pouvoirs de conserver ses acquis au niveau de la population, au niveau démographique ; je pense ici à l'émigration. Rien de moindre que ce qui est nécessaire pour lui pour conserver sa langue et sa culture ne sera acceptable pour le Québec. Il s'agit vraiment depuis Meech d'un minimum.
On aurait peut-être pu s'en tirer avec ça au niveau de Meech, mais maintenant vous savez que le mouvement souverainiste fait des pas de géant. Mes amis qui sont au Quebec, que ce soit des anglophones ou des francophones, sont tous d'accord sur une chose : c'est que le Québec peut très bien survivre au niveau économique. Il n'y a plus cette crainte-là, si vous voulez. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'ils ne sont pas conscients qu'il va y avoir des sacrifices à faire au niveau économique. Il va y en avoir, évidemment, s'il y a un éclatement du Canada, ne serait-ce au niveau technique. On ne serait plus capable de faire partie du Groupe des sept, des pays les plus industrialisés qui se réunissent tous les ans pour decider de l'orientation de la politique économique mondiale. C'est quand même quelque chose d'important. Ça veut dire qu'on n'aura pas le produit national brut minimum pour faire partie de ces organismes.
1400
J'ai aussi des amis autochtones dans le nord de I'Ontario et au Québec et eux vont faire partie de façon très importante de ce qui s'amorce, parce que si on ne satisfait pas à leurs demandes, on ne pourra pas créer quelque chose de vraiment nouveau, une nouvelle vision qui va faire que tous et chacun vont se sentir acceptés dans ce Canada qui va être capable de faire face aux problemes que va nous apporter l'an 2000.
Je crois profondément que l'Ontario a un rôle de leader et de médiateur à jouer dans ce processus qui s'amorce. L'enjeu est de taille, c'est la survie du Canada.
Premier argument en faveur du rôle de l'Ontario : je pense que le rôle clé est que l'Ontario est la province la plus peuplée, la plus riche puis celle qui a le plus profité, si vous voulez, du pacte confédératif depuis qu'il existe. C'est aussi la province qui a le plus à perdre avec l'éclatement du Canada, surtout dans le contexte du libre-échange avec les États-Unis, avec le Mexique. Il ne faut pas se le cacher, c'est elle qui a la base industrielle manufacturière la plus solide et la plus lourde au Canada.
Et la raison, je pense, qui me tient le plus à coeur, c'est probablement qu'en dehors du Nouveau-Brunswick c'est la province qui a le plus fait pour sa communauté francophone, surtout depuis les dernières années, et c'est un argument qui est important. Non seulement a-t-elle beaucoup fait pour la communauté francophone, mais elle amorce des choses qui sont totalement originales et nouvelles quant au traitement de la communauté autochtone. Il y a des ententes qui ont été signées avec les différentes tribus du coin de Temagami qui vont créer des précédents pas mal intéressants pour d'autres expériences dans le reste du Canada.
Il y a aussi un autre facteur qui est important : c'est probablement l'Ontario qui a la plus grosse communauté allophone aussi. C'est probablement elle, malgré les difficultés qu'on a avec la communauté jamaïcaine et les communautés de couleur, qui entretient les meilleures relations avec ses communautés allophones.
Fondamentalement aussi, un des acquis, si vous voulez, du projet Trudeau : c'est aussi la province à majorité anglophone qui compte le plus grand nombre de francophiles. Si on pouvait faire le décompte actuel et exact du nombre d'anglophones qui prennent tous eurs cours en immersion française, c'est probablement supérieur même aux total d'étudiants francophones de la province.
Il m'apparaît important, comme membre de la communauté franco-ontarienne, que l'Ontario puisse conserver cette crédibilité, d'abord en continuant de travailler dans la bonne direction pour ce qui a trait à nos intérêts à nous : que l'Ontario reconnaisse un statut égalitaire aux communautés anglophone, francophone et autochtone ; qu'elle fasse la promotion de dualité linguistique à son rythme dans la province ; et qu'elle appuie la communauté francophone dans ses efforts de se doter des instruments et des moyens éducatifs nécessaires. Je pense ici au collège communautaire français, à une université francophone pour donner les moyens à la communauté francophone de se donner les outils économiques nécessaires pour être un plus et un apport à l'Ontario. Ce qu'on demande ici ce n' est pas la charité, ce sont les moyens d'exceller nous aussi si on a accès à l'éducation pour réussir en affaires et dans tous les domaines de l'emploi.
Je crois que c'est la même chose que demandent les autochtones maintenant. Ils ne veulent plus être des gens qui sont sur le bien-être social, des gens qui sont aux crochets du gouvernement. Ils veulent une autonomie politique et économique qui leur permettra de réaliser leurs potentiels et de contribuer au pays. Et tout ça justement pour contribuer à la croissance de l'Ontario, tant au niveau économique que social.
Le rôle de l'Ontario va être excessivement délicat, excessivement difficile pour toutes les raisons que je viens de mentionner. L'Ontario va avoir la difficile tâche de convaincre les autres provinces d'accepter de comprendre la nature des demandes du Québec et leur légitimité. En même temps elle va devoir faire comprendre aux Québécois les inquiétudes des gens de l'Ouest, les difficultés et les inquiétudes des autochtones. Moi, j'entrevois ce rôle-là comme étant un rôle de pont et de médiateur aussi. Comme je le disais tout à l'heure, dans ce rôle je ne peux pas concevoir que l'Ontario soit en deçà du rôle que jouait le premier ministre Peterson pendant les négociations de l'accord du Lac Meech. Ce n' est certainement pas par manque d'efforts de la part du premier ministre de l'Ontario de l'époque que l'accord du Lac Meech n'a pas été reçu. C'est pour d'autres raisons qui tiennent au processus, qui n'étaient pas tout à fait accepté et acceptable puis au tordage de bras et à cause du fait que le gouvernement fédéral a trop attendu.
Si vous me le permettez, avant de passer au dernier point j'aimerais mentionner quelques éléments qui devraient faire partie de la nouvelle vision du Canada qu'on devra forger ensemble si on veut s'en sortir.
Évidemment, le Québec doit être reconnu comme une société distincte avec tous les pouvoirs nécessaires pour maintenir cette distinction, pour maintenir les acquis de la langue et les acquis culturels, qu'on pense aux pouvoirs de légiférer sur la langue et à l'immigration, et ça, comme je l'ai dit tout à l'heure, ce sont des demandes minimales. Je pense qu'il est possible d'accorder ceci au Québec sans trahir l'esprit du fédéralisme si, évidemment, on redéfinit le fédéralisme sur deux points très importants : à partir de la reconnaissance de foyers linguistiques et culturels, qu'on pense aux autochtones, aux anglophones et aux francophones, qui doivent avoir les moyens de préserver leurs spécificités, c'est la premiere prémisse ; la deuxième : si le fédéralisme est redéfini à partir d'une distinction claire entre les pouvoirs du gouvernement central, des gouvernements provinciaux et des futurs gouvemements autochtones, on devrait arriver à quelque chose qui fonctionne. Il faut que l'autonomie des peuples soit la nouvelle prémisse sur laquelle devrait être fondée le nouveau pacte confédératif sans que soient perdus les acquis de l'ancien pacte, par exemple au niveau du rôle du gouvernement fédéral pour ce qui a trait à son rôle d'harmonisateur.
On peut donner des exemples d'acquis du gouvernement du fédéralisme tel que défini, par exemple, depuis 1982. On n'a qu'à penser au rôle du gouvernement fédéral dans le domaine juridique avec la Charte des droits et libertés, avec toute la structure de la Cour suprême que je pense être une des meilleures au monde et qui doit être conservée. On peut trouver d'autres exemples là-dedans.
Il faut un gouvernement central fort dans les domaines de ces compétences mais il faut aussi reconnaître la souveraineté des provinces dans les domaines qui relèvent de leurs compétences à elles. Il faut éviter ce qu'on a connu, ce qui a créé une inflation de la bureaucratie. Il faut éviter qu'il n'y ait dédoublement des pouvoirs qui a redondance dans bien des domaines. Évidemment, les domaines de la politique étrangere, de la Banque centrale, de la défense, par exemple, sont des domaines qui ne peuvent être que l'apanage du gouvernement central. Or, ce qu'il faut réussir à faire, il faut décentraliser une grande partie des pouvoirs qui reviennent aux provinces pour créer une dynamique vraiment démocratique qui va permettre aux structures politiques d'évoluer avec la société canadienne.
L'échec de l'accord du Lac Meech s'explique en grande partie par ce problème-là. La constitution n'a pas suivi l'évolution de la population canadienne, les structures non plus. Quand on a voulu réagir et consulter les gens il était trop tard. On a essayé de sauver le bateau d'en haut et ça ne pouvait pas fonctionner. On avait oublié les autochtones là-dedans.
Si je prends position pour un rôle fort de la province de l'Ontario, c'est qu'en tant que francophone je crois profondément en la capacité et au désir de l'Ontario elle-même de créer des conditions de vie acceptables pour les anglophones, pour les autochtones et pour les francophones même si le Canada ne devait pas survivre au référendum qui est fixé pour dans deux ans au Québec.
Finalement, parce que l'Ontario est la province qui a le plus reçu de la Confédération et parce que c'est la province qui peut le plus donner parce qu'elle a le plus d'expérience diversifiée et l'économie la plus forte, il me paraît évident au moment où on se parle, au moment critique de l'histoire de notre pays, que les Ontariennes et les Ontariens et leur gouvernement doivent absolument assumer un rôle de leadership dans la redéfinition et dans le sauvetage de notre pays.
M. le Président : On va passer à la prochaine presentation. Merci.
Je voudrais appeler Lucie Fortin. Est-ce qu'elle est ici ? Non.
1410
ÉCOLE SECONDAIRE THÉRIAULT
M. le Président : Le prochain groupe de quatre personnes : Alain Lemery, Chantal Dallaire, Denis Boileau et Rebecca Hawke de l'école secondaire Thériault. Bonjour.
Mlle Dallaire : Bonjour. Nous avons aujourd'hui l'honneur de représenter une classe de 28 étudiants et étudiantes en histoire du Canada de niveau CPO. Comme le sujet l'indique bien, nous sommes préoccupés par l'avenir de notre pays. Nous remercions le comité et le gouvernement ontarien de nous donner l'occasion d'exprimer nos craintes, nos idées et nos espoirs face à notre pays.
Premièrement, nous désirons réaffirmer notre volonté de travailler pour un Canada uni. Nous voulons un Canada d'un océan à l'autre car enfin nous croyons en l'existence de ce pays.
Cependant, la faillite de l'accord Meech nous démontre que le moment est venu de changer et de créer un nouveau Canada. Nous suggérons de décentraliser le pouvoir fédéral tout en conservant certaines restrictions ou pouvoirs.
En tant que jeunes personnes songeant aux études universitaires l'an prochain, nous ne voulons pas, une fois sur le marché du travail, être régi par une constitution qui nous empêcherait de travailler, de voyager ou de vivre librement au Canada. Nous désirons une flexibilité d'une province à l'autre, nous voulons un pays en mesure de nous assurer un avenir solide et stable aux niveaux carrière et revenus et un système de taxe équitable partout au Canada.
Peut-être sommes-nous un peu simplistes, mais je crois qu' il faut s'asseoir et regarder les fonctions de son gouvernement et de sa constitution. Premièrement, on sait qu'il faut connaître les aspirations et valeurs d'un peuple afin d'avoir le boa fonctionnement dans le pays. On n'a jamais eu dans notre constitution une section qui dictait nos aspirations et nos valeurs, car l'ensemble du peuple canadien ne peut jamais venir à être en accord en ce qui concerne les valeurs de ce peuple.
Une question que nous devrions nous poser, c'est comment pourrait-on tous être en accord dans un pays si vaste et multiculturaliste ? Les besoins et intérêts de l'Ontario ne sont certainement pas comparables à ceux de la Colombie-Britannique ou à ceux de la Saskatchewan. C'est bien pourquoi le peuple canadien doit être gouverné régionalement afin de combler leurs intérêts et besoins diversifiés. On a juste à regarder les buts économiques des provinces ; ils ne sont pas tous les mêmes. Les provinces de l'Est veulent tout probablement trouver d'autres industries afin de mettre leur part économique au pays. Mais l'Ontario est déjà très riche en ressources et a seulement besoin de trouver d'autres façons de gérer ces ressources afin qu'elle devienne plus productive.
En général je crois qu'on doit donner la majorité des pouvoirs aux provinces, et de cette façon les peuples seraient plus satisfaits que leurs intérêts soient comblés régionalement.
M. le Président : On a besoin de savoir les noms des gens qui ont présentés. Donc, mademoiselle, c'est quoi votre nom ?
Mlle Dallaire: Chantal Dallaire.
M. Lemery: Bonjour. Je suis Alain Lemery.
Nous voulons réiterer qu'il faut repenser notre constitution. Les pouvoirs comme l'éducation et la santé devraient être des responsabilités fédérales. Il y a eu trop de jeux politiques dans le transfert des paiements du fédéral au provincial. Si le fédéral tient tant à sauvegarder les programmes sociaux et le système de santé, qu'il en assume la responsabilité. Aussi, en matière d'éducation, quoi de mieux pour promouvoir l'unité nationale que la même histoire du Canada enseignée en anglais et en français.
De plus, le Québec est une société distincte. Acceptons cette réalité. Donnons aux provinces la responsabilité de l'environnement ainsi que de l'immigration.
Il ne devrait pas y avoir le double ministère, c'est-à-dire, que soit le fédéral ou le provincial ait entière juridiction sur ses pouvoirs. Il ne devrait plus y avoir de programmes à frais partagés, car souvent le fédéral diminue la somme de paiements, ce qui cause des problèmes aux provinces, comme par exemple le régime d'assistance publique du Canada.
Ainsi, les autochtones qui habitent le Canada depuis des temps immémoriaux sont maintenant les citoyens les plus défavorisés. Il est nécessaire que le gouvernement fédéral rencontre les diverses tribus et leurs chefs pour ainsi parvenir à une entente en ce qui concerne le bien-être de ces derniers. Il faut un plan d'action qui comprendrait l'autodétermination des autochtones, les revendications territoriales et l'amélioration de la qualité de vie dans les communautés amériadiennes, en encourageant les autochtones à gérer leurs propres affaires et à préserver leur culture, leur dignité, pour qu'ils contribuent plus positivement à la société canadienne.
Mlle Hawke: Bonjour. Je suis Rebecca Hawke.
Le régionalisme semble se refléter de plus en plus au Canada. Que chaque région ait cette liberté de s'épanouir comme elle l'entend. Le gouvernement provincial pourrait jouer un plus grand rôle dans le développement économique de cette province ainsi que dans une série d'ententes ou d'échanges entre les provinces.
L'Ontario doit jouer un rôle de leadership, elle doit être le tour de force qui fera pencher la balance du côté de l'unité nationale. L'Ontario a bénéficié de la Confédération, c'est une province riche qui ne doit pas penser : « Qu'est-ce qu'il y a pour moi ? mais plutôt Qu'est-ce qui est là pour l'ensemble de nottre pays ?» Nous suggérons que l'Ontario prenne l'initiative et mette sur pied une campagne de sensibilisation à travers les médias pour promouvoir le canadianisme.
En tant que francophones, héritiers et héritières d'un riche passé, nous désirons un Canada où un francophone est bien chez lui. Hélas, tel n'est pas le cas si l'on prend les exemples de Sault-Sainte-Marie et Thunder Bay. Il faut que nous, les francophones, possédions nos institutions postsecondaires en français. Ceci altérerait le processus d'assimilation et démontrerait la volonté des Ontariens d'apprécier notre culture et notre langue.
M. Boileau : Mon nom est Denis Boileau.
En plus, nous nous inquiétons beaucoup sur I'avenir de la nation. Que s'est-il passé pour en arriver là ? Un manque de leadership ? Un manque de vision pour l'ensemble du pays ? N'oubliez pas que vous, politiciens et politiciennes, devez assumer ces grandes responsabilités pour notre génération. Qu'allez-vous nous léguer ? Un pays fragementé ? Il faut vous mettre à la tâche et bâtir un nouveau Canada avec le Québec. Sans cette province, nous perdrions nos racines et le début de notre grande et belle histoire, nous laisserions de côté les compromis qui ont permis à Cartier et Macdonald de fonder une nation. Nous avons le gout du Canada. Ne mettez pas en danger notre avenir. Merci.
M. le Président : Et à vous tous, merci bien. Il y aura sans doute des questions.
M. Boileau : Est-ce que c'est possible de répondre à des questions en français ? Merci.
Mr. Martin: It was very uplifting to hear you today and some of the ideas you have, the thoughts and the aspirations for Canada, and the hope that is in your voice.
On a different day and in a different place there was mention made of the cost of the dreams we have for our country, the economics attached to such desires; we politicians were challenged that we are spending money today on a credit card that you, the younger generation, will someday have to pay. Could you perhaps comment on that a little and share with us what your feelings and thoughts re that kind of comment would be?
Mlle Dallaire : Je m'excuse, mais je pense qu'on n'a pas totalement compnis les intentions de votre question.
The Chair: I am asking Mr Martin if he could rephrase the question.
Mr Martin: Yes. I said you spoke of such wonderful things for Canada. You had dreams and hopes and aspirations and you challenged us politicians to some action. In a different place and at a different time a presenter challenged us with the cost of such dreams and such activity, and accused us of spending money by credit card that you, the younger generation, will have to pay for, that you will get the bill. I guess I want to maybe challenge you. Have you thought about that, and what response might you have? Does that make any more sense?
Mlle Dallaire : Je vais essayer de répondre aussi bien que j'en suis capable. Comme on l'a dit, on voulait être représenté régionalement, plutôt. Donc, si les politiciens reconnaissent nos besoins et peuvent donner priorité à ces besoins, je pense qu'on n'aurait plus de problèmes.
1420
Mr Eves: It is a pleasure to see young people here today taking part in what I consider to be an extremely important process. I was intrigued by the tone most of you took about more flexibility with respect to provincial powers; you talked of regional needs in Canada as well as provincial needs. Throughout last week, I think it is safe to say, the majority of people who appeared before this committee indicated that they wanted a strong federal government with strong federal powers. You seem to be saying the opposite, that you would prefer to see strong provincial powers and more regionalism in the government of Canada. I wonder if you could expound on what role you would expect Ontario to take in that process, and what your reaction would be, if any, to the Allaire report that has come out of Quebec a few days ago.
M. Boileau : Ce que nous essayions de dire, en donnant plus de pouvoir aux provinces, c'était plutôt de faire une diversité dans les pouvoirs : c'était plutôt afin d'équilibrer les pouvoirs. C'est sûn que le Québec demande beaucoup dans le document Allaire, mais je ne crois pas qu'il soit possible qu'il demande moins après la faillite de l'accord du Lac Meech.
Mlle Dallaire : Vous avez dit que la plupart des personnes semblent vouloir un gouvernement central et fort, puis vous êtes un peu surpris de nous voir demander un gouvernement central faible. On a un pays si vaste, avec tellement de différents besoins ; comment peut-on donner une loi ou des pouvoirs avec tellement la même base pour des cultures si différentes ? Nos besoins ne sont pas les mêmes que ceux, disons, de la Colombie-Bnitannique qui, eux, sont bien plus anglophones.
Je crois que le pourcentage d'une région va faire que nos besoins deviennent prionitaires dans cette region. Ce qui est bon pour nous n'est peut-être pas aussi bien pour une autre province. Donc, si on est tous satisfait de ce qu'on reçoit de la province et du gouvernement, je pense qu'il y aura moins de chicanes entre les provinces puis on va être capable de retourner à un pays plus uni et satisfait.
Mr Eves: I did not mean to say -- I do not think I did say that I was surprised, but I found it intriguing or interesting that you would come at it from a very different point of view, and I think it is a very refreshing one.
M. Beer : On parle beaucoup du rôle des politiciens dans toute cette question mais je me demande s'il n'y a pas aussi un rôle pour les étudiants, par exemple. Je ne sais pas si vous faites partie de FESFO, la Fédération des élèves du secondaire franco-ontarien, mais est-ce que vous voyez, entre vous et vos homologues québécois, qu'il y a peut-être un rôle pour les étudiants et étudiantes francophones de dialoguer avec les étudiants du Québec sur ces questions ? Est-ce que ça va être important, en tant que membre d'un chambre de commerce ou d'un syndicat ou d'un groupe d'étudiants, de ne pas simplement laisser les politiciens résoudre complètement ce problème ? Qu'est-ce que vous voyez pour vous, comme étudiants, avec les autres étudiants francophones dans la province, mais aussi en parlant avec les étudiants dans les autres provinces ?
Mlle Hawke : Dans mon petit discours j'avais mentionné une suggestion, de faire une campagne nationale pour promouvoir le canadianisme. On pourrait peut-être faire des annonces à la télévision pour rendre le monde plus respectueux envers le Canada en tant que Canada uni ou par les différentes cultures. Ca serait un projet national, peut-être provincial. Et puis municipalement, ou peut-être entre l'Ontanio et le Québec, je pense que ça pourrait se faire aussi, même dans les écoles ; on pourrait promouvoir l'unité canadienne et puis ça serait un bon projet. Ce n'est pas juste national, ça pourrait fonctionner municipalement entre les écolcs, entre les cultures. Ce serait une bonne suggestion.
M. Winninger : Il y a plusieurs groupes multiculturels qui voudraient avoir les mêmes pouvoirs, les mêmes droits que les groupes francophones. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez de cette idée ?
Mlle Dallaire : Je pense, en ayant le respect pour l'un et l'autre, que c'est important de respecter leurs demandes et, de même encore une fois, je pense que le régionalisme aidera à ces cultures à se promouvoir. Si dans une certaine région spécifique une culture veut promouvoir ses propres besoins, d'abord ces gens seraient comblés par ces régions-là, cette province.
M. le Président : Merci bien pour votre participation.
PERRY JAMES
The Chair: Could I call next Perry James?
M. James : Bonjour. Mon nom est Perry James. Je suis né au Québec. J'ai fait mes études en Alberta, en Ontario, au Québec et au Nouveau-Brunswick. Mes parents, grands-parents et arrière-grands-parents sont d'origine française, écossaise, irlandaise, allemande et micmac de la Nouvelle-Écosse. J'ai marié une Franco-Ontarienne de Cochrane. Et je suis présentement à enseigner le français comme langue seconde à Englehart.
I will make that presentation entirely in English, a language I learned by choice 10 years ago. My first language is French, but I see it as an honour to use my second language in front of your commission.
I envy the American people. You may ask: Why talk about the American people today? I do envy them, because they respect their document called the Constitution. They study it right from childhood. Despite many disparities and injustices, the American people do rally behind the flag in time of national crisis. Canadians, on the contrary, seem to split in time of crisis. We have to find someone to blame.
What about our Canadian Constitution and our bill of rights? Do we accept, as Canadians, that the Constitution should and must be the foundation of our nation? Nine provinces have signed the Constitution, Ontario included. Do they respect their signature? Unfortunately, it appears to me that the Constitution is only a piece of paper that we ignore as if it does not exist.
Could we stop and study our Constitution? Are we this great nation we pretend to be? We are all here in front of this commission debating the future of Canada while our soldiers are at war in the Gulf. When those brave soldiers are protecting the values we all share, do they look upon themselves as French Canadian, English Canadian, Italian Canadian in the battle? I do not think so. Can the Premier or the Prime Minister of Canada show a bit of leadership and decency by stalling constitutional talks while we are at war?
Are we this great nation we pretend to be? Our Constitution tells us that French and English are equal. If we do not believe that Canada should be officially bilingual, then we are not respecting our Constitution. We are the second-largest country in the world and we are saying that we cannot accommodate two languages. Switzerland, a small country with a population of 7 million, has four official languages: German, Italian, French and Romansh, the Romansh language with a population of 50,000.
In the last 15 years these are the things I personally witnessed in Canada on the language issue. I saw Quebec becoming unilingual French. I saw some 50 municipalities becoming unilingual English in Ontario. I saw Bill 101 telling francophone parents: "You have no more rights to send your kids to the English school. Only the rich can now, through the private school."
I saw French Canadians compared to the AIDS virus. I saw the Canadian flag being stepped on. I have seen the Quebec flag being stepped on. I saw pamphlets selling Canadian educational products with French in the section of foreign languages. I saw radical associations, English or French, using statistics to describe and prove a point, by ending at the sentence "(without Quebec)" in the English radical ones, and in the French ones "(without Canada)."
1430
I saw associations and people whining against French education for Franco-Ontanians or French francophones outside of Quebec. I have never seen one MP in Quebec in the National Assembly standing up against that, against the right of education for the anglophone. You may be surprised one day if Quebec becomes independent. They will put it in their constitution.
I saw francophones, professionals out west, being told by VPs, "Can you speak English in the staff room?" I saw English Canadians promoting that the French Canadians are not the founding people of our nation, and I could go on and on and on non-stop.
All those radical associations have, in fact, hidden agendas. One is to make Quebec an independent country at any price and the other is to eliminate any trace of French culture outside of Quebec. Other ones are promoting that English is a superior language in the rest of Canada or that French is a superior language in Quebec.
Can we stop and study our Constitution? Can we be nation-builders? When our leaders are showing lack of leadership and hiding in the closet, those radical associations are taking over the national agenda. This national agenda is for hurting people around them and, you know, they are taking a pleasure in it. Enough is enough.
Are we this great nation we pretend to be? I see those provincial leaders creating protectionist barriers that slow or stop interprovincial mobility of labour while in the same times our great nation is opening the right of American workers to come into Canada. I see provincial leaders having a feeding frenzy for federal powers. Let me quote you Jacques Parizeau, who is presently the president of the Parti québécois in Quebec, who talked in Toronto in 1968:
"As long as it is only Quebec who is demanding powers, it could work, but if other provinces start doing the same, the federal government will face incoherence and chaos." This is what we have right now, chaos.
I see the right for provinces to use referenda affecting national issues. Why does the federal government not use the federal powers of a referendum? This is what William Davis, in return for his approval of the repatriation of the Constitution, told Pierre Elliott Trudeau: "I am willing to back you on the repatriation of the Constitution without Quebec, but you are going to take the constitutional right of the federal government to use referenda." And he did so. That is Bill Davis.
I see provincial leaders using the "notwithstanding" clause. It is easy to blame Mr Bourassa right now, that he used the "notwithstanding" clause for cultural issues. But do you know who proposed the "notwithstanding" clause? It was Richard Hatfield, Premier of New Brunswick, who said during the constitutional talks in 1981, "Mr Trudeau, if you want my approval, you are going to have to give me that clause." Who is blaming Mr Hatfield?
To all the provincial leaders who have approved the repatriation of the Constitution, without the approval or the signature of Quebec, were you real nation-builders? Are we this great nation we pretend to be? I see my actual Prime Minister lacking a vision of Canada. He is supposed to talk tomorrow, and listen to him. Maybe he will have one tomorrow. Although, considering his lack of popularity in Canada, I would suggest that the Prime Minister create parameters of any future constitutional debate.
First, you should not accept, Mr Mulroney, any negotiations that will make Quebec independent. Let them do the independence. Second, sovereignty-association is unacceptable for the majority of Canadians. Third, you are willing to negotiate but you have nine other provinces. Do not forget the frenzied thirst for powers. We have already heard, "What you give to Quebec, we'll have." Okay? A great future.
Are we this great nation we pretend to be? I do not see enough effort to understand and listen to the plea of natives concerning their land claims and their right for more autonomy. We may argue who founded this country 130 years ago, but do not forget they were the first nations 30,000 years ago.
Are we this great nation we pretend to be? I see multicultutalism becoming a tool of assimilation, wrongfully. Too often I have noticed those comments: "If we let the French have their schools, then let the Italians and Chinese, etc, have their own schools." Another comment:
"You can have your own culture in your house. But don't ask me to pay for it, to promote your culture." Another quote I have heard too much: "You can wear your turban, but don't wear it at work." By those kinds of comments, they are asking multicultural groups to be themselves but only on a part-time basis. Is that what we want to make them feel as Canadians? Unfortunately, many Canadians find multiculturalism as assimilation or melting pot.
My presentation may show some of the bitterness and disillusion, but mostly it is a condemnation of the intolerance of the few. I believe it is not the majority of Canadians. Most Canadians are people of goodwill, but those intolerant, vocal few are convinced, and that is the drama, that Canada, tomorrow, is one without Quebec, without the right of Quebeckers to protect their culture, without the right of natives to have self-government and without cultures being different from their own.
If Quebec goes, who is going to be next? Let them talk. Let them do what they want. You will have your Canada, but I will not stay in that kind of Canada for sure.
The Chair: Mr James, if you could sum up, please.
Mr James: Yes, I am almost finished.
The Canada I want is the Canada where people can be themselves and can be respected for their differences. Canada is the second largest country in the world and we should not forget regional differences. That you may be Newfoundlanders, Québécois, Westerners or Maritimers does not make you less Canadian. It only reflects a reality.
The crisis we have now is due to many factors not included in this presentation. We are now witnessing the clash of two visions of Canada. We are witnessing the decline of various cultures and nothing is done about it. We are witnessing English superiorists and French superiorists working hand in hand.
I believe we should strive for excellence and find a reasonable compromise. Canada will never be the perfect country. Excellence can only be a goal. Let us not build walls when all the walls are falling. Let's strive for excellence, which should be the first goal. Respect our Constitution and make Quebec sign with dignity, because one way or the other, Quebec will not lose its dignity. They are distinct and they know it.
This time, the Quebeckers will not make the mistake to ask the rest of Canada to approve of their uniqueness in Canada. They may choose another road to be themselves, but I hope we will still have, as Canadians, enough sense of compromise to be builders of our nation. We have to put an honest and strong effort to remain united. If not, we will have committed a crime against humanity. Canada will be history.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
1440
VIC POWER
The Chair: We will move on to Vic Power.
Mr Power: Mr Chairman and honourable members of the select committee, first may I congratulate you upon having selected Timmins as the site for today's session of the committee on Confederation.
The topic you are researching is important but, in my opinion, the Constitution ranks second to the economy, for this is a period when plants are closing and people are losing their jobs right across the province and, sad to say, northern Ontario is not immune from this disease. Personally, for the young people who are coming out on the job market as well as for the experienced workers who are facing difficulty in securing employment, I am certain that it would be far better to focus our energy and attention on the economy rather than the Constitution.
Having said that, Ontario does have the pivotal role to play in the constitutional process. In doing so, I would urge that this province insist on a strong central government. To read news reports that the federal government has set up a task force of senior civil servants to work on the dismantling of the powers of the federal government is distressing, disturbing and, to say the least, disappointing.
This would fly in the face of the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker and, in most recent times, Lester Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, not to mention all the people who have built this great country.
I grow weary of those who say that Canada is not working, that Canada is a failure. If it is, why then are we the envy of the world? Make no mistake about it, all of us must be Canadians first. Only three provinces pay more into the federal Treasury than they receive. These provinces are, of course, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. All the more reason for us to insist on a strong central government so that Canadians maintain and enjoy national standards from sea to sea.
All of us have benefited from the network of social programs in place as a result of this broad view of Confederation. If Canada is to progress economically and politically, we should demand for future generations nothing less than a strong central government. In my view, Mr Chairman, Ontario should lead the way.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You have made it very clear that you feel there is a need for a strong central government. We have heard from presentations that there is also the need to address interests on a regional basis and that there is a feeling that maybe the central government is not the place to do that.
I am wondering if you might be able to share with us how one can balance those two needs. The first, on one hand, is the need for a strong central government. Yet, on the other hand, there is a growing concern that regional interests, not only in this province but throughout the country, are not being addressed at the central level and that there is the need to address them potentially at a provincial level. I would like to get your thoughts on how best to address both those issues.
Mr Power: I do not know that they can be reconciled perfectly or completely, but we do know that Europe is pulling together, the United States of Europe. Even Great Britain is going to go on a different currency in a year and a half's time. They are not going to have the pound sterling any more. They are going to be on the Eurodollar, or whatever currency they determine to have in Europe. So if Europe is pulling together, I cannot see why Canada should be falling apart.
I think that we have to pull together towards the centre. Certainly we have to recognize regional interests and certainly the rights of all peoples, French, English, native, people whose origin at least is from other lands, must be respected and recognized. But at the end of the day you have to have a strong central government.
Could you imagine right now if we had to make a decision about going or not going to the Persian Gulf if we had to consult 10 different provinces? I think that we would not have a strong medicare system if we did not have transfer payments coming out of Ottawa to the less fortunate provinces. And so on it goes.
The same can be said really for education. While education is a provincial responsibility, somewhere there has to be a strong federal government that can make transfer payments to the provinces to make education just as important in Newfoundland as it is in Ontario or Quebec or British Columbia.
The Chair: I just have one question myself. You mention at the beginning that you thought that the issues of the economy were in fact more important, or at least as important as the question of the Constitution. I wondered if you could comment. Certainly from my perspective, it does not seem that it is a question of separating those two issues. I wondered if you had any thoughts on the kind of role that Ontario could play in the debate around how we, within ourselves first of all, can become more competitive and better respond to the needs of our citizens. At the same time, what role can we play in the Canadian sphere on economic issues?
Mr Power: There is no doubt that Ontario has been the engine that makes the Canadian economy run. All I am saying is that at this difficult time, not just in southern Ontario where some of the smaller plants have been closing -- and there may be reasons for that; for example, free trade -- but even in northern Ontario, we have had a lot of difficulty, if you look at Sault Ste Marie, if you look at Elliot Lake, if you look at Temagami, if you look at the closing of the Adams mine at Kirkland Lake. We are not without problems here in Timmins.
I am saying that constitutions are for comfortable middle-class people to talk about in the comfort of a parlour. But jobs are really the most important. I think we have to get down to bread-and-butter issues. If we solve the bread-and-butter issues, I think the other problems will tend to solve themselves.
The Chair: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
PATRICK BAMFORD
The Chair: I call next Pat Bamford.
Mr Bamford: I will introduce myself. I was born and raised in northern Ontario and spent most of my working life here. I will not say how long ago that means, considering my age. Also, I work in this school here as a guidance counsellor. Some people would say that that is a contradiction in terms, work and guidance counsellor, but that is what I do.
To state the obvious, the most significant factor at this time affecting our Constitution is the relationship of Quebec to Confederation. One can best understand the present relationship through a historical perspective.
From the earliest days of Nouvelle France signs of cultural-national identity were already evident. The cultural tenacity of this people of the early 1800s, who had already been established in North America for two centuries, is understood in retrospect by a serious underestimation of the famous Durham report.
Confederation, useful for economic and political security of the pioneer region, never diluted the nationalist feelings of the people of Lower Canada. On the contrary, over the various years various decisions of the federal government were seen as frustrating this cultural-national identity but never subduing the deep-rooted feelings. One of the defence mechanisms in this regard has been the uncanny ability to vole en bloc in federal elections to gain as much control over the decisions of Confederation as possible.
1450
In more recent decades, nationalism was served by a voluntary opting out of many federal programs. This meant that Quebec administered the national programs with federal money under the flag of Quebec, so to speak. The best-known example of this arrangement is the Quebec pension plan administered in lieu of the Canada pension plan.
You will recall the shouting of "Vive le Québec libre." This was not an unfortunate mistake by a foolish politician, but a well-orchestrated expression of a reality many of us have chosen to ignore. More recently, Robert Bourassa's proposal for renewed federalism is not surprisingly nothing less than a more explicit statement of nationalism by demanding most of the remaining powers of a sovereign nation with the notable exceptions of external affairs, defence and monetary policy.
It is, in my opinion, the final step before achieving the ultimate destiny and fulfilment of the nationalist aspirations of Nouvelle France, which have been expressed at times more eloquently than others in the political events in the regions over the years.
To say that the language decision in the northern town of Sault Ste Marie, or the dancing of a few misguided characters on the Quebec flag in eastern Ontario, or the rejection of the Meech Lake accord by the first nations people, is pushing Quebec out of Confederation is to admit, in my opinion, that one has never fully understood the historical aspirations of the people of Quebec.
Quebec's separation, like the public view a few years ago of divorce, is seen as something wrong or immoral, and therefore some evil person must be responsible: for example, Clyde Wells, Elijah Harper, Mr Mulroney or the people of Sault Ste Marie. On the other hand, most of the people of Quebec accept their nationalist feelings as positive and natural. It is the rest of us outside of Quebec who see it as a threat or an evil since it frustrates our own view of Canadian nationalism.
The failure of Meech Lake, for goodness' sake, was not the cause of Quebec nationalism, but a temporary, albeit emotional frustration in the natural process of maturation of a culture towards greater self-determination and nationhood. I, like many of you, am not happy with the situation, but that does not eliminate a reality that we must acknowledge if we are going to deal with it.
The possibility of separation is seen by many outside of Quebec as a failure. Therefore, it is important psychologically to have a scapegoat. Beware of scapegoating in the next few years.
A January poll in Quebec indicated approximately 70% of its citizens favour political independence. Industry Minister Benoit Bouchard, after travelling throughout Quebec, recently said: "It's my impression that they've already left." Events are moving very quickly, so what are our options for the future?
It is clear to me that Quebec nationalism has reached a political reality such that a Confederation of equal provinces is no longer acceptable. In the final analysis, I believe we will ultimately arrive at one of three possible scenarios.
The first scenario is one that I find totally unacceptable, but is one that seems to be rapidly unfolding. This is the situation where Quebec assumes a position of dominance in Confederation by virtue of special powers akin to those of a sovereign nation and simultaneously by virtue of electing federal MPs who continue to have a major say in the affairs of the rest of Canada.
In a desperate effort to quiet the crescendo of Quebec nationalism, the federal solution has been to throw money in massive dosages into Quebec, to concede federal contracts in inordinate proportions, to offer a veto on constitutional reform, to offer extra senators, to implement a bilingualism program outside of Quebec in such a panicky, clumsy fashion that it has only served in large part to alienate, dislocate and frustrate the careers of many Canadians.
A recent sample of this first scenario of the evolution of Quebec dominance in Canadian affairs is the federal decision to develop the Hibernia oil field off Newfoundland with the proviso that major contracts be tendered in Quebec.
All this, I believe, must be very amusing to the nationalists in Quebec, but in the end inconsequential and ineffectual. On the other hand, though, it is serving, however inadvertently, to place Quebec in a privileged and dominant position in Canadian affairs, casting Quebec in the involuntary role as spoiler, big bully, spoilt brat or chronic complainer, whereas all Quebec really wants, in my opinion, is respect for the right to be maitres chez nous.
Hence the dilemma: It is not logical by definition for a sovereign nation to exist as part of another sovereign nation. It is the implication of this painful reality with which the rest of us outside Quebec must come to grips.
I would like to interject at this point from my written text to indicate that I believe it is also immaterial to the nationalists in Quebec whether Ontario declares itself bilingual, but it is not immaterial to the citizens of Ontario. If this committee, as some media are intimating, recommends official bilingualism for Ontario, in my opinion it will serve no purpose as far as Confederation is concerned, but may very well cause a severe backlash in Ontario and fan more harm.
I do not see the percentages of it for a government to enter into unnecessary controversy. My best advice is to tread softly. I am on record in this community as a member of the hospital board as supporting wholeheartedly the provisions of Bill 8 and the provisions of French-language services, and I believe that given time Bill 8 will accomplish what it was intended to do.
The Chair: Perhaps you could sum up, please. We are getting near the end of the time.
Mr Bamford: The second scenario is a mutually beneficial agreement between two sovereign nations -- Quebec and Canada -- the latter comprising a union of nine provinces and two territories. The relationship would probably co-manage such things as defence, fisheries, the St Lawrence Seaway, etc. This is what I believe is meant by sovereignty-association.
For those of us, and I include myself, who have difficulty visualizing such radical changes in the arrangements of Confederation, this is at first blush an unpalatable situation. Yet on closer examination when one analyses what the alternative scenarios are, one must come, I believe, to the inevitable conclusion that this is the only practical and honourable way to deal with Quebec nationalism and at the same time to retain the rest of Canada as a single nation.
The third scenario is probably the most likely, but in my opinion as unattractive as the first. That is a form of economic community of sovereign Canadian states. I believe that Premier Robert Bourassa's recent proposal of renewed federalism is nothing less than a blueprint for just such a Canadian common market of independent provinces or regional states. Prime Minister Mulroney, as it appears, will offer the same substantial powers as demanded by Quebec to the other provinces, confirming the direction where all this is leading.
I believe this direction is unacceptable and that the Ontario government must resist the temptation to weaken the central government, even if the current Prime Minister begs to give its sovereignty away. To maintain a real national identity we must maintain the powers of a strong national government. Ottawa is not our enemy in this regard; she is our friend. The biggest danger in the short term that I see, in the heat and desperation of negotiations to attempt to maintain a semblance of Confederation, will be deals that compromise for ever the ability of the other nine provinces to continue as a single sovereign nation.
The Chair: Mr Bamford, I am sorry to interrupt you again. You will have to just sum up. We are beyond the time allotted.
Mr Bamford: But I only have two more pages.
The Chair: I know that, but I have to be as fair as I can to all the people who are speaking before us. We have the brief and we certainly can read it. If you want to sum up with your final comments on it, we would appreciate hearing those.
Mr Bamford: The reality of this third scenario will likely unfold fasten than we can imagine. Already Mr Vander Zalm is requesting controls over immigration similiar to those being negotiated with Quebec --
The Chair: Mr Bamford, I will give you 15 more seconds and then I am just going to cut you off.
Mr Bamford: I have a summary, some conclusions or recommendations, and you have my report if you would read it, please.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Bamford: In summary, I would recommend that the Ontario government take a leadership role in maintaining a sense of national identity and national vision for all of Canada.
Do not allow the federal government to negotiate unilaterally constitutional arrangements with Quebec or any other province. Negotiating the Constitution is the prerogative of the college of provinces.
Be wary of the political attractiveness of negotiating Confederation at any cost.
Resist the temptation to accept or negotiate further provincial powers that will weaken the national government.
The final recommendation is most difficult for me to say. If negotiations fail to keep Quebec in a provincial mode, have the political fortitude to resist negotiating a make-believe Confederation but instead allow Quebec to negotiate its national independence with dignity.
Finally, to the members of the commission, you are to be commended for your efforts on behalf of Ontario for our great nation. I wish you Godspeed in your momentous task.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bamford, for a thoughtful presentation.
I just want to check with the members of the committee before proceeding. I am not sure if the next group is here or not. Is Gilles Gagnon here? Okay, we are slightly -- well, actually we are not, we are about on time and we do have a couple of other groups that we have added to the list. I just wonder if the committee wants to take a five-minute break to get up and stretch? We will do that. We will break for five minutes and we will be back in as close as we can to five minutes, folks. Thank you very much.
The committee recessed at 1505.
1524
CORPORATION DE LA VILLE DE HEARST
M. le Président : Si je pourrais appeler Gilles Gagnon de la municipality de Hearst.
M. Gagnon : Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, mesdames et messieurs, membres du comité, au nom de la Corporation de la ville de Hearst, j'aimerais d'abord remercier le gouvernement ontarien de donner la chance à la population et aux groupes ontariens d'exprimer leurs opinions sur ce sujet vital qu'est l'avenir de notre Confédération et le rôle de notre province à ce sujet. J'aimerais également remercier le comité de nous avoir donné la chance d'xprimer notre point de vue à cet auditoire aujourd'hui.
Hearst, située à 270 kilomètres au nord-ouest de Timmins, est reconnue pour sa bonne chasse et sa bonne pêche mais surtout pour son caractère canadien-français prédominant alors qu'environ 85% de ses 6 200 habitants sont de langue maternelle française. Cette majorité de citoyens de langue française et le fait que l'industrie forestière de notre région, ses entreprises, ses institutions et ses organismes ont été fondés et sont en majorité gérés par des francophones fait que Hearst a été baptisée par plusieurs comme le petit Québec de l'Ontario.
Hearst et sa région immédiate, comprenant la Corporation de Mattice-Val Côté et plusieurs villages, forme une région économique d'environ 10 000 personnel dont la majorité est francophone. C'est une région dynamique avec un esprit entreprenant qui fait qu'elle est toujours avant-gardiste dans plusieurs domaines économiques et sociaux. C'est une communauté et une région qui, sans l'ombre du doute, a la volonté d'assurer la survie de sa langue française et de vivre de façon prospère dans la langue française. Toutefois, la majorité des francophones a assumé ce droit dans le respect des droits des minorités.
La ville avait fait les manchettes des médias nationaux il y a des années, alors qu'on avait su que la ville de Hearst était déclarée bilingue en 1978, non pas dans le but de respecter les droits des francophones mais pour respecter ceux des anglophones, fait inusité dans une communauté hors Québec.
Notre région est hospitalière et chaleureuse, où les cultures cohabitant harmonieusement et même collaborent ensemble pour le mieux-être de notre région. Étant situées dans une région d'interéchanges commerciaux et qu'un effort concerté était nécessaire pour le développement de la région, les quatre communautés de Hearst, Mattice-Val Côté, Hornepayne et la réserve indienne Constance Lake First Nation formaient il y deux ans une corporation de développement économique régionale afin d'aider la région à diversifier sa base économique et à devenir plus autonome.
Cette association en est une de trois cultures -- francophone, anglophone et amérindienne -- et le nom adopté par la corporation, Nord-Aski Frontier Development, est un jumelage de trois langues: «Nord» en français; « Aski », le mot cri pour « terre »; tandis que les mots anglais « Frontier Development » définissent plus clairement la région et l'objectif de l'association.
Lors du débat sur l'accord du Lac Meech, nous n'avons pas pu nous empêcher de penser que les politiciens auraient dû regarder en notre direction pour voir comment les trots cultures dominantes du pays peuvent cohabiter et travailler ensemble pour le mieux-être général.
En fonction de notre expérience, je crois parler pour la majorité des gens de notre communauté quand je dis que nous reconnaissons que le Québec est une société distincte et que cette province devrait avoir la permission de rapatrier certains pouvoirs distincts dans le but de pouvoir assurer la survie de la langue et de la culture françaises, rapatriement des pouvoirs qui n'enlève rien à l'Ontario et aux autres provinces et qui permettrait de garder cette province dans la Confédération canadienne, qui à notre avis est d'une importance capitale.
Les communautés autochtones constituent également des sociétés distinctes et devraient jouir d'un degré d'autonomie leur permettant de gérer leur présent et déterminer leur avenir. Tout ce que ces communautés veulent dans le fond, c'est d'avoir la chance de se développer de façon la plus avantageuse possible sans rien enlever à ses voisins. À ces moments critiques de l'histoire de notre pays, les Ontariennes, les Ontariens et leur gouvernement doivent prendre un rôle de leadership, de médiateur et de communicateur pour garder notre pays ensemble. L'Ontario peut et doit jouer un rôle prépondérant dans le rapprochement des différentes régions du pays et dans le rapprochement des différentes communautés.
Basée sur sa puissance économique et sa force d'attraction industrielle, elle a moins de demandes fondamentales de changement et peut ainsi jouer un rôle de médiateur pour le rapprochement des différentes régions du pays.
1530
Plus important encore, à cause de la présence du demi-million de francophones dans la province, de nombreux groupes multiculturels et d'une présence importante de communautés autochtones, l'Ontario est donc bien placée pour signaler aux autres provinces du Canada l'importance de maintenir des liens étroits et fructueux entre les différents éléments de sa communauté, de vouloir développer en parts égales tous les membres de sa province pour qu'ils se sentent tous membres à part entière d'une province et qu'ils participant à l'économie et au développement de cette province et du pays. Nous le disons aujourd'hui, l'Ontario pourrait prendre en exemple des régions comme la nôtre pour prouver que l'union fait la force et que la division crée de la faiblesse.
Notre région et tous les francophones de l'Ontario reconnaissent les efforts du gouvernement et du peuple ontarien en ce sens. Mais l'instant est grave, et il faut agir rapidement pour sauver notre pays d'un éclatement qu'on regrettera peut-être à jamais.
En cette période déterminante de l'avenir du Canada, nous demandons que ces efforts soient poursuivis et intensifiés pour montrer l'exemple aux autres provinces et démontrer au Québec qu'ils doivent faire partie de notre Confédération.
En ce qui a trait aux objectifs de développement de la population francophone, nous recommandons que le gouvernement de l'Ontario se déclare officiellement bilingue, tout comme le Nouveau-Brunswick, pour assurer une meilleure transition entre le Québec et l'Ouest canadien; que le gouvernement de l'Ontario déclare que les communautés anglophone, francophone et autochtones aient égalité de statut en Ontario; que le gouvernement de l'Ontario remette aux francophones la gestion de leurs institutions d'enseignement; que le gouvernement de l'Ontario ait de l'avant avec l'établissement d'un collège de langue française, de même que d'institutions universitaires de langue française; et finalement, que l'Ontario fasse la promotion de la dualité linguistique dans la province.
Merci beaucoup.
M. le Président : Merci. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ? M. Offer.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much. Just one short question. First, let me thank you for your presentation. During your presentation you stated that Quebec is a distinct society and therefore has the right to assume enhanced powers in negotiation between that province and the federal government. In your opinion, is the right for Quebec to assume these enhanced powers or indeed to negotiate with the federal government founded on the principle that it is a distinct society, thereby it might exclude other provinces; or is there in your opinion the right of all other provinces to negotiate in the same way that Quebec is doing with the federal government?
Mr Gagnon: Well, I would think that the duality of our nation, in terms of francophones having been given certain rights on the onset and the majority of francophones living in the province of Quebec, would give them this distinct society status in order to protect this language among hundreds of millions, really, in North America. So it is in that vein that I see the province of Quebec having a special status. It has already started, as you are aware, in terms of control of immigration.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
M. Beer : Il y a un an, vous avez parlé à plusieurs reprises au sujet des problèmes du fait français, des problèmes qu'ont les francophones dans la province, et je me demande, et ce serait peut-être utile pour nous du comité : après un an de la crise linguistique, est-ce que vous voyez qu'il y a un changement d'opinion ? Je pense qu'il est important de souligner que non seulement Hearst mais bien d'autres municipalités se sont aussi déclarées bilingues. On a beaucoup parlé du mouvement de l'unilinguisme, mais en même temps, si je me rappelle bien, il y avait une cinquantaine ou une soixantaine de municipalités en Ontario qui se sont déclarées bilingues. Alors après un an, qu'est-ce que vous pensez de la situation ici dans le Nord vis-à-vis des relations entre les groupes anglophones et francophones ?
M. Gagnon : À ma connaissance, je pense, comme on dit en anglais, « the dust is settling ». Étant en contact avec certains gens de ces villes-là, on me dit d'une part qu'il y a encore des problèmes et d'autre part que c'est mieux de laisser l'affaire s'arranger par elle-même, que le temps va panser les choses. J'espère que c'est ça la situation.
Mr Martin: I hear from your presentation certainly an urgency to do something that will save the country in front of the present challenge. From listening to other folks and, I guess, a sense out of my own guts that some of the reasons we are in the problem we are in right now is because of maybe too much urgency, I think we as Canadians or Canada as a country, as a young country, relatively, when you see other countries, and we are evolving in a way that up until -- you know, things were moving along, Ontario was. Bill 8 and I think other things were beginning to happen. And with Meech we had the sense of urgency and then finally a time line; it had to be done by this date or else. I am wondering if you are able to think of -- because I cannot -- a way of slowing this thing down so that we can get hold of it with both hands and move it at the speed that it needs to move so that we can do it right.
Mr Gagnon: Well, whether it is a perception or not, this thing of Lake Meech and the declaration from Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay and other municipalities -- as a personal experience, this year I had the opportunity to go to the 350th anniversary of the arrival of my ancestors very close to Quebec City. They came here in the 1640s. For your information, the Gagnon family is the most numerous in America, with the Tremblays. I had the opportunity to talk to many people from the province of Quebec. Of course, even though they came from all over the world, in the United States and Mexico and so on, there are still quite a few who came in from Quebec because we went to the ancestral land. And when I talk about urgency, I had a feeling that, whether it was a perception, as I said, there is this sense over there of wanting to separate, which would be «efface» for the country.
Mr Martin: There were some images thrown around this morning too, that were shared this morning too that you use now, and I think maybe we have to begin to look for new images and metaphors, and it may be a different language even in front of this challenge.
You talk of family and I can resonate with that and I think maybe if, more and more, we talked as family rather than as distinct nations and that kind of thing, we might be able to come up with some new way of putting this agenda back on the right track and moving ahead with it. Terms like "respect" and "understanding" I think happen more readily within family, where people love each other and care for each other, than they do when you consider perhaps strangers in communities separated by the distances that we have in Canada.
Mr Gagnon: Well, I agree that we should be a family here in Canada, but within that family there are distinct cultures -- like the natives, like the French culture, and like the English culture -- that formed the basis of this country, and I would hope that within that family we can recognize that.
The Chair: Further questions? Merci.
Mr Gagnon: Thank you.
The Chair: If I could call next Dorothy Wynne from the Kapuskasing Native Women's Group. No? Okay.
1540
GARY WHITMAN
The Chair: Gary Whitman.
Mr Whitman: Ontario in Confederation: We have got the good, we have got the bad and we have got the ugly. Will Canada survive the onslaught of the federal government and the Quebec government? It is difficult, at the least, to distinguish one from the other, as they are so intertwined and self-serving. Now Ontario has joined the ranks, with secret meetings between Bourassa and Premier Rae. Canadians would like to know what is going on between these two.
Maclean's weekly, 4 February, informs us of Quebec's deadline on independence if its demands for the seating of new powers is not granted immediately. Is this what Rae and Bourassa were discussing?
Confederation has been very good to and for all the provinces in Canada. The federal government must not give up any powers, not to Quebec or any of the other provinces. If anything, they should acquire more.
Having said that, allow me to explain.
Our present system of government, federal and provincial, is really not working. The one great reason for this is they refuse to listen or represent the large majority of Canadians. Only minorities, it would appear, are listened to, especially since Trudeau came to power. The Trudeau Constitution is a first-class example of the misuse of power. It was written by self-serving bureaucrats and had absolutely no input by the Canadian people.
This worthless piece of paper was used by Quebec to silence the 25% of English-speaking Quebeckers, a sizable minority. Quebec refused to sign the Constitution but used it anyway. Make sense? Not likely.
A twit had managed to put a "notwithstanding" clause into our supposed Constitution. What we as Canadians must do now is redefine the meaning of parliamentary democracy. The Canadian people must have an impeachment bill and procedure to be able to remove prime ministers and premiers who have become megalomaniacs. Our backbcnchers have no backbone for the job. A bill must be created to recall MPs who refuse to represent their constituents. Now the party line, which is the dictatorial power of a prime minister or a premier, is a must for investigation in the immediate future.
The new governments will be we the people, of the people, with the people. The time is fast approaching when we will have to elect separately the premiers and the Prime Minister.
Why has the New Democratic Party supported Bill 8 when only 58 members were present for the vote? This does not even represent a quorum. In fact, of the 58 present, not all voted in favour of the bill. Peterson kept it very secret until it was leaked by a concerned employee over a year later. If this is democracy, we are in trouble.
Do you people know what democracy means? Of course you do. Let us now put democracy to the test. Call a referendum on Bill 8 and be done with it. Allow the people of Ontario to decide if they want to cater to a 4.2% minority. Enforced bilingualism, known as Bill 8, is costing too much and has caused more problems and animosity between the different linguistic groups than what it is worth.
Everyone in North America is descended from ancestors who came from somewhere else. The North American Indians were the first founding people in the new world. Then came the European. Without the help of the natives, the second-comers never stood a chance of survival. These facts are well documented in history. The idea of the English and French being the two founding nations is at best a sick joke.
As citizens of this country we have to put a halt to being called hyphenated Canadians; for example, English-Canadian, French-Canadian. If you are born here in Canada, you are a Canadian; no more, no less.
Under the disguise of multiculturalism, we have been duped. Multiculturalism disguises the thrust of Frenchification in our society. Peterson was quoted in the Timmins press 2 August 1990, "I will fight to the death for minority rights in this province." What hogwash. In reality, all minorities are protected from discrimination and guaranteed equality under the law as any other citizen of Canada. We believe Peterson meant special rights for the 4.2% minority of French descendants in Ontario.
The massive amounts of money being poured into Frenchification of Ontario could be put to better use in educational programs to help all citizens of Ontario and not a few elitists who have been created by such legislation as Ontario's Bill 8, the federal government's Bill C-72 and Quebec's Bill 178. However, what goes around comes around.
We know of no Canadian who hates anyone who can speak a second language. We do, however, object to being told we have to speak a foreign language to get or hold a job. Jobs are being taken away from English-speaking persons and given to French-speaking people who can barely speak or understand English. Where is your bilingualism now?
What is Canadian culture? English, French and many others have Christmas trees at Christmas. We all sing Christmas carols like Silent Night. We tell our children about St Nick and Santa Claus. Hey. Heavens. The tree comes from Germany. Silent Night and many other popular Christmas carols were written in Germany. Santa Claus comes from Holland.
We have all taken the best from all cultures and adopted them as our own through natural evolution. It is not possible to legislate culture or to force a foreign language on a people who do not accept it, as you people damned well know by lhe backlash on Bill 8.
My ancestor was heavily involved in Confederation in 1867. I find it my duty to my country to carry on what he and John A. Macdonald started. At this time 65% to 70% of Quebec was other than French. An example: There were Scottish, Irish, English, Dutch and German from Pennsylvania. There were people from Norway, descendants of the Vikings. There were Welshmen and about every other country represented, too numerous to mention. The Empire Loyalists had come to stay.
We would like to know what history is taught in French schools. Canadians are under the misunderstanding that Quebec is a French province. No way; sorry. The French colony was ceded to Britain in 1759 and thus became an English colony. Because we have allowed Quebeckers to change names from English to French, does not change a thing. It does prove we are tolerant, but we believe that tolerance is coming to an end.
France's President de Gaulle's "Vive le Québec libre" is still galling in our throats. Try as he might, de Gaulle had to face the fact that French had slid to 18th place in world languages. All the French colonies revolted against their rulers. Vietnam is a good example. He thought he still had Quebec. Trudeau kicked him out of the country as an undesirable alien. De Gaulle told or ordered the science community in France to create French words to replace English terminology. They tried and failed. As one scientist said: "You can only hyphenate so many French words. Then it becomes nonsense."
1550
Quebec, the spoiled brat of Canada, wants to split and run away, but run away with what? Quebec does not own the south shore. It does not own Ungava. It does not own Rupert's Land, and the narrow strip of land on the north shore was ceded in 1759, so why are we talking about our place in Confederation? Because Quebec will demand the sink and Mulroney, because he is a Quebecker, will give Parizeau the whole damned kitchen.
We have all heard of Quebec's intention to separate and take with it, by force if necessary, the northern half of New Brunswick, Labrador and northeastern Ontario and turn it into a French-speaking nation. This, we tell you now, will not happen by whatever means. The governments must be changed to represent the majority or as Canadians we are doomed to extinction. Confederation has built this wonderful country and what our forefathers have built, let no man put asunder.
I only have two or three more remarks to make and I am finished. Whatever happened to the politicians who cared for their country? Whatever happened to the people who would fight to the death for their country? It would appear that party-line politics has killed democracy. Many things must change before the heat of the summer, when tolerance is at its lowest. My last statement I address to Mulroney: It is a damned shame that the only thing Mulroney has done right is to put us in a bloody war.
Questions?
The Chair: Yes, if you would like to hold on, there are a couple of questions. Before I open it up for questions, I guess one can agree or disagree with a number of the points that you have made, but regardless of that, I think it is important to point out that certainly French is not a foreign language in Canada. It is the other official language, one of the two official languages in Canada. I think just for the record that needs to be clear.
Mr Malkowski: You brought up a perspective in some of your concerns which I appreciate. As to your point regarding the elimination process and the input process, or lack of it, do you have any suggestions or can you be any more specific, possibly implementing a referendum or any examples of how, as you would like to see, we might be able to get rid of the Prime Minister or MPs, as you were mentioning?
Mr Whitman: First of all, sir, I never said we had to get rid of MPs or the Prime Minister or anything, but occasionally if we had the threat where we could recall them if they do not do their job, if they do not serve their country, then, down the road -- as for a referendum, I believe most people believe that referendums should be held at the polling booth. No, I do not believe this is necessary at all. Government mail, as I understand, passes through the post office free of charge. Is that right?
Interjection: Federally.
Mr Whitman: In Ontario we pay; the federal government is for free. Well, we can make a deal with the post office. But anyway, a questionnaire could be very easily sent to every registered voter in Ontario and returned, punched in on a computer and if the answer came back one way or the other, if it came back for bilingualism, I would for ever hold my peace and if it came back saying "No more bilingualism," as the French say, c'est la vie.
Mr Beer: I think, Mr Whitman, that one of the important things about our hearings is that people can come forward and share with us their sense of their vision about the country and the kinds of values that they see underpinning it. I think it is also important that in that exchange we all be very honest and straightforward with one another. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that a lot of the basic points that you make, I simply disagree with.
I think that when you look at the history of this country, whether one likes it or not, with the native peoples and then the English and French and others coming after, we have built a country where we now have a Constitution that may not be to your liking, but which a lot of people worked very hard and very openly to bring about.
I cannot let pass your suggestion that Bill 8 was passed in the dead of the night. It was debated as was any other bill in the Ontario Legislature. People came forward and expressed their points of view. We have had several elections in this province since that bill was brought forward, and I would argue that in a democratic system there has been full and open debate. Again, one might not like that bill, one might not like the way it has perhaps been administered, but it has been done openly and it has been done with full discussion in the province.
I think that what we have to do and what we are doing now, part of what this committee is all about, is trying to determine, is there within this country a consensus around what kind of country we want to have? In my view I believe that if we are going to have a country called Canada, we are going to have to have respect for the English and French languages in this province, in Quebec and in New Brunswick. Others may feel differently.
Mr Whitman: I could not agree with you more, sir, yes.
Mr Beer: But I think that those are issues that we are trying to come to grips with and the language one is going to be very critical. My sense is that your thought is that this has been a problem for the country and that we really should be a unilingual country. Is that correct?
Mr Whitman: Sir, first of all, I would like to correct you. There is a difference between Bill 8, which is enforced bilingualism, and natural evolution bilingualism, shall we say. For a lot of people I met who grew up in Timmins, their last name is as German as mine and they slip in and out of English and French like I would a pair of socks. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But bilingualism, so many people say no, no, no, when you force it on a person to get or hold a job, and when you cannot speak -- one time I heard you could speak English or French. No, now it is French. When you replace an English person with a French person who cannot speak English, this is not bilingualism, sir.
In Kirkland Lake where I was born, we always had many, many people of many different backgrounds. Everybody spoke a common language, English. We had no problems with anybody who spoke any other language. You grew up with it. It was s natural to see little three-year-old kids who are English -- my grandson is two years old. His babysitter's father is Italian and the mother is French. He comes home to Grandpa and it is not a cat any more; it is a minou. He comes over and he has a few expressions now in Italian too.
Now that kid is going to grow up bilingual, but easy. A lot of people are not linguistic, unfortunately. You see somebody who drives a school bus for 15 years and every kid on that school bus speaks English, and she loses her job because all those kids are going to French immersion. I am sorry, but like I said before, tolerance is coming to an end.
Mr Harnick: Sir, you appear on our agenda representing a group called the Concerned Citizens of Northeastern Ontario. You have not told us anything about your background personally, nor have you mentioned who this group is. Can you tell me who this group is, what kind of an area they cover, how many members you might have and whether you are affiliated with any other groups.
1600
Mr Whitman: No, we are not affiliated with any other groups. The Concerned Citizens of Northeastern Ontario was got together, and we have the Spicer commission coming to Matheson.
Mr Harnick: Well, no, I appreciate you are not the Spicer --
Mr Whitman: No, that is what the committee is for.
Mr Harnick: Just a second. You are not the Spicer commission. Who are you? We know who the Spicer commission is. Why do you not tell us who you are?
Mr Whitman: My name is Gary Whitman.
Mr Harnick: I know that.
Mr Whitman: Okay. What else do you want to know?
Mr Harnick: How big is your organization? How many members do you have?
Mr Whitman: Members? In the committee, I have about 20.
Mr Harnick: All right. Gee, I mean, northeastern Ontario is a big area. How big an area do you cover?
Mr Whitman: Right now, it is from Timmins to Kirkland Lake.
Mr Harnick: And you have 20 members?
Mr Whitman: No, I have 20 people on my committee.
Mr Harnick: Well, how many members --
Mr Whitman: There is no membership in that. There are no dues.
Mr Harnick: Well, how many members do you have?
Mr Whitman: There are no members. Mr Harnick: Ah, thank you.
Mr Whitman: The committee is to bring people together to the second-string Spicer commission.
Mr Harnick: Okay.
The Chair: One last quick question, hopefully, Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: One of the things you alluded to in your presentation was the question that the people within the province or the people within the country have to have the right to be able to recall their politicians if they feel they are not doing something right. You also alluded to the point of having a situation by which the population itself would be able to decide major issues according to referendum.
I just have a short thing to say, then I want to ask you the question. The first thing is that we have just had an experience, for example, of referendum in the United States in the last congressional elections where every major environmental piece of legislation that was put forward to a referendum was lost. I have to ask myself the question, why? I guess one of the answers is, he who has the most bucks shall win the referendum, and I have a bit of a hard time trying to understand that.
But the last thing is that when you made the allusion to being able to recall the politicians, I think it sounds great on paper and it sounds like a good idea, but do you not think that it is going to put the people in a situation where the politicians are going to be so darn scared to make any decision that they will in effect not be able to do their jobs in any kind of way, because they will always be afraid, "If I say this, this group will be mad at me over there. If I say this, the other group will be mad at me. Therefore, I'll make no decisions whatsoever," and we will have total chaos? What is your opinion on that, because that is what I see out of this?
Mr Whitman: The thing is, you are absolutely right.
Mr Bisson: Do you want chaos? Is that what you are advocating?
Mr Whitman: No. You are right in your scenario when you say politicians will be so afraid that actually no legislation will get done.
Mr Bisson: So what you are advocating is to have no legislation.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, let Mr Whitman answer the question.
Mr Whitman: Thank you. No, I am saying you would have to almost commit murder before such a procedure would ever be taken, even considered. Also, it would have to take a certain percentage, for example, on a -- what do you call that when you get all those signatures?
Mr Bisson: Petitions.
Mr Whitman: A petition, yes. It would take so many signatures on a petition to even implement such a thing. I mean no, just for somebody to walk in and say, "Hey, I'm getting you out of that office because" -- no, it would not work that way at all, Mr Bisson; no way.
Mr Bisson: I wish we lived in a perfect world.
Mr Whitman: Oh, no, we will never get that.
TIMMINS NATIVE FRIENDSHIP CENTRE
The Chair: Could I move on next to Raymond Tremblay. No? Okay, Morris Naveau from the Timmins Native Friendship Centre. Mr Naveau, go ahead.
Mr Naveau: My name is Morris Naveau and I am representing the native friendship centre. Good afternoon. Glad to meet you guys.
Okay, first of all, I want to start off with the Constitution. What is the Constitution? I ask myself the question sometimes, what is it? Well, it is supposed to be like a mirror. When we look at it, we should see ourselves, but we never do as native people. The reflection to date of native people has been a series of negative images, as we all know; to name a few, drinking Indians, unemployed, lazy and many more. We have been called so many names.
Past governments have always made major decisions for native people. There is no participation process for native people. It does not work and it will never work. It will never work because native people have never been involved or asked to be involved. The government must now shift from an active, doing role to the job of assisting native people in processing their own decisions. That means self-government. I think it is time for native people to get their own self-government.
Today, Elijah Harper is a national hero because he said no. This was not an impulse no, it was a rational no. It was the response of thousands of native people from all over this country saying no, simply to stop everything until native people everywhere can be heard and listened to before decisions are made.
For example, here in Timmins, an urban centre with approximately 2,000 or 3,000 native population, there are six reserves within two hours of this city, yet aboriginal people here do not have the right to what they are entitled to. The Indian Act states that native Indians do not pay tax anywhere, yet young people or adults who are living in Timmins because there is no secondary school in their community pay taxes. To me this is an absurd regulation, very unfair to my people. It makes me sick sometimes to even look at it and listen to it day after day on TV. No matter where an Indian lives, he is never going to change. He is always going to be an Indian. Why do we have to pay tax wherever we live?
Government moneys are now being spent to support a war which is killing young people and many people whose culture we do not even understand. This is not a justification for what Hussein is doing, yet Canadian tax dollars are going to foster this war. Native and Canadian people are now being asked to support the government spending by paying the GST, not only native people but all people. It is ridiculous and sickening.
Native youth and adults need education programs which include native languages and culture. These cost money, yet government programs are being cut back drastically every year. Post-secondary funding for students is limited and social services agencies such as friendship centres are suffering from cramped facilities, limited funds for programs, inequity of staff wages and limited financial resources for professional development and research. I know the government has to do more for the friendship centres and for the native people. There is not enough.
Once again, it makes me sick what this government is doing to the native people of this country, yet they hear people talking in here and saying, "Well, the French and the English." What about the Indians? We have been here a long time. My grandfather -- you can go 200 years back. Still we are in the same boat. Nothing. The government has taken most of our land away and you only give me 15 minutes here to try and get it back. That is ridiculous.
In conclusion, I would like to say that native people in leadership roles should become a government priority. Leaders have followers and good leaders need to be part of the true visible minority. It is time for native people to start getting involved with government issues. I think the government should start accepting that, if you want to see something that is going to work with native people and non-native people. You are going to have to start getting them involved in all aspects of job, issues, no matter what.
1610
We are very lucky that we are living here in Timmins. Timmins is a city here that accepts native people to work in its workforce. I am proud of Timmins. I could not say any more for Timmins, but I am very proud to live here today in this city because it is one of the cities that accepts native people. At the end I should say that native people must be seen and heard and involved in all aspects of government issues. That is all I could say. That is the challenge: Change for the better. You are talking about natives again. Foreigners, French language, English language -- what about the native people? We are just starting in the school here, in Timmins High, to put in native culture and native language. That has just started but there should be more native people getting into the workforce and sitting on different government jobs.
It will always be the same unless you start getting native people in there. If you do not, you are going to have another Oka. I will bet you that, because the native people are so fed up with what the government has been doing to the native people. They have been pushed around for the last 200 years. I am 45 years old and I have not seen a change, just a little. Is that what my son and kids have to go through next after me? It is ridiculous, yet the government wants me to listen to it. I am not going to listen to it. I respected the government at one time but not any more because it does not listen to me anyway. Why should I listen to it?
None of you know how I feel. You are just staring at me as if I am another grieving Indian. I am not grieving. I am hurt inside. Now you are listening. I am proud of that. Thank you very much. I will let my friend here do a little bit.
Mr Cheechoo: Good afternoon. My name is Gilbert Cheechoo and I would like to make a few comments, in addition to what Morris had to say. We are here I guess talking about the Constitution. These are some of the feelings that I have gathered over the years in discussing these issues with a lot of people. I have a lot of family and friends who are politicians, so we do talk a lot about politics. I came with Morris to share some of these things that we have come across.
When you talk about the Constitution, you talk about sovereignty, and you always have to remember where sovereignty comes from. Sovereignty comes from some place, and it came from our people. When Brian Mulroney said there is no issue with the aboriginal people for sovereignty, he forgets where his sovereignty comes from.
When our treaty was signed in 1905, our people allowed the Canadian government to use our land as sovereignty. That sovereignty did not come from the Queen, the King. That sovereignty came because the King said in 1763: "You have to deal with the aboriginal people as nations. Before you go and take their land you must sign a treaty with the aboriginal people. Then you have the right to declare sovereignty, but other than that you are going to declare sovereignty over lands that do not belong to you." As they say, when you steal land you are not a land owner; you are a thief. This is the thing that we have been trying to get across over the years, that what we are asking for and have always asked for has scared a lot of people.
We, like Morris said, do not want to be another Indian whining here. We have not been whining. I will tell you one thing: There is no nation in this world such as ours that has to pay for human rights with its land and with its rights and its dignity and its pride. There is no other nation in this country that has given up its culture, its way of life, its land, for human rights. The right to exist, to eat, to be healthy, to have housing -- this is the thing that we are paying. We are paying, my friends. We are paying with our land, which is us. The aboriginal people: who they are is the land.
Like our elders said, it will be hundreds of years before the European will ever take root into this land. It will take him hundreds of years before he will treat this land like it is his, as if it belongs in his heart, as we do. Every time we say, "You guys cannot destroy our territory. You are destroying us and our way of life for hydro development, for resource exploitation," that land is us. It is connected with us. Our roots are deep. You will cut our lifeline. You do not have a lifeline in this country. You have a supply. This is our lifeline. The land is us, who we are.
And, my friends, when we talk about our human rights, the right to housing, education, health, guess what? Two hundred thousand excess square miles was assigned under treaty for those basic rights that each and every one of you here received. Even if you came into Canada today, you will get the same things that we are getting and we are paying for with our land and our rights to that land and our rights to self-government, our rights as human beings, who we were, Ininew, Nishnawbek people, what God gave us. That is what we are paying for. There is no other nation in this world that pays for human rights -- like me telling you, "I will use your land, but the guarantee I give you is I will let you live."
For example, today we have what we call a rural rehabilitation assistance program under CMHC. You talk about double standard. You talk about exploitation and abuse. We have this housing program that is given to our people, and under this housing program you cannot qualify if you are making over $23,000 a year off and on reserve. This is open to all Canadians. They gave it to us because we cried: "Our housing is poor. We don't have enough moneys from Indian Affairs." So they gave us the RRAP.
When you are on a reservaiion, my friends, your Canadian dollar is worth nothing. Believe me, I worked as an adviser for business development here in Timmins for aboriginal people. Your Canadian dollar is worth nothing because once you cross that reservation boundary line, there is no economics. There is no return on investment. You cannot own a house. You cannot own land. You cannot even use ten, five, whatever thousand dollars' worth of equipment, hunting, mapping, boat motor, car.
Whatever you spend your money on, you cannot use it as collateral if you want to start a small business or borrow some money or whatever, because you are not allowed under the Indian Act, under present legislation. So, my friends, there is no return on investment on anything that we do. There is no economics. When that happens, you become a welfare state. All your policies that say, "We are going to help aboriginal people to be self-sufficient," ain't going to work because of that.
1620
So this housing program comes to us. You compare it with yourself. I did with one of the local MPs, Cid Samson. I told him this before and I said to him, "You compare yourself to this scenario." I live on a reservation. I make $30,000 a year off the reserve. I work hard for that money. So I come back home. My house needs repair. That house does not belong to me; it belongs to Indian Affairs. They let the band council look after it and they call it self-government, so they give it away. I live in there and it needs repairs.
I go to the RRAP, which was so generously given to us, and I have to take out of my pocket because I cannot qualify. I make over $23,000 a year. If I need my repairs, I cannot get any money from the band. I have to take it out of my pocket and put it in a house that does not belong to me. Where is my return on investment? The guy that makes less than me gets qualification for $6,200, so he upgrades his house.
You take a white person or a non-native person or even an Indian off a reserve and you stick him in that same scenario with his own house. If you put $5,000 into your house, you might appreciate the value of that house. So it is worth it when you are making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 to help yourself because your house is going to return that on you. You can take it to the bank. Same thing with the guy that is making $13,000, $14,000 or less. He too can take his house to the bank after he renovates it.
Where do we take our money? Which bank do we go to? There is a double standard in this country. What happens to a hardworking guy like me when I put money into a house that does not belong to me on a reservation? I do not get any money back because everything is worth zero. You might as well give us a voucher.
You see, that is the fundamental problem when you talk about the Canadian Constitution that people forget. The government sends out a task force to study the Indian. They should send a task force to study themselves. Where do you get your ideas from? If it is not good for you, then why give it to us? If it is not going to work for you, why give it to us? That is what we are saying. There is a double standard. If you cannot treat us that way, then the French people, the other minority people, the English people, whoever, are going to fall victims to that thing, the same thing that is going on, and that is a good excuse to avoid things, you know. We do not have time.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I just want to say that I do not think any of us presumes to know what it is like to be in your shoes, but I think that we are trying very hard and sincerely to understand some of the problems that we have to cope with as a government. I think that our government has committed itself to acknowledging the needs of native peoples and the right to self-government, but I think each of us knows that it is going to take more than words for the credibility to be established, that it is going to take concrete actions. I think all of us are conscious of that.
Mr Naveau: Well, that has been going on for the last 200 years, you know.
The Chair: Exactly, which is --
Mr Naveau: You have to take action. That is what we want: action.
The Chair: I think we acknowledge that that is the need that has to be there. Thank you for your presentation.
We will move on to Lucie Fortin. Est-ce que Mme Fortin est ici ? Non ? Jean Lantin ? Gary Prudhomme ? Caroll Jacques ? Dorothy Wynne ? Sir, you are?
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE-FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO, RÉGION DE KIRKLAND LAKE
M. Jacques : Caroll Jacques. Je n'ai pas présenté par écrit parce que je devais me présenter mercredi à North Bay, mais c'est plus court pour moi de venir ici parce que je suis de Kirkland Lake. Mais vous allez avoir d'ici quelques jours ma présentation.
Monsieur le Président, membres du comité, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, région de Kirkland Lake est heureuse de pouvoir vous présenter son point de vue sur l'avenir du Canada et en remercie le comité.
La région de Kirkland Lake compte environ 5 000 francophones et s'étend des frontières du Québec à l'est; de la région du Tri-Town au sud; de la région de Cochrane au nord; et Matachewan à l'ouest. La région comprend les villes de McGarry, Larder Lake, Kirkland Lake, Englehart et Matachewan.
Je désire parler brièvement sur cinq points. Premièrement, comment pouvons-nous assurer notre avenir au sein de l'économie mondiale ? Nous sommes assurés que le Canada peut et doit jouer un rôle actif au sein de l'économie mondiale, notre caractère bilingue nous permettant de communiquer avec presque la totalité dirigeante des pays et notre approche multiculturelle nous permettant de mieux comprendre l'ensemble de la population mondiale. Nous ne pouvons pas, par contre, sacrifier l'un par rapport à l'autre.
Deuxièmement, nous devons absolument trouver une solutions aux attentes amérindiennes au Canada. Nous préconisons l'autonomie des groupes amérindiens et une approche de développement économique et culturel pour et par les amérindiens; un exemple : la suppression du ministère des Affaires indiennes, tant au niveau fédéral que provincial, remplacé par un gouvernement amérindien élu par les améridiens.
Troisièmement, l'avenir du Québec au sein du Canada devra continuer dans la mesure du possible. Mais il faut lui permettre de se développer et non juste de survivre. Nous reconnaissons le caractère distinct du Québec et son droit à décider de son avenir au sein du Canada dont il décidera la manière.
Quatrièmement, le rôle du français et de l'anglais au Canada : les francophones hors Québec ont un pays qui s'appelle, comme pour les anglophones, le Canada. Tous ceux qui pensent que si le Québec se sépare, ceci éliminera automatiquement le français au Canada peuvent s'attendre à des surprises. Le français et l'anglais doivent, indépendamment de la décision du Québec, demeurer les deux langues officielles au Canada.
Cinquièmement, l'Ontario devra continuer de jouer son rôle de leader au sein du Canada. L'Ontario devra donner l'exemple en déclarant le français et l'anglais langues officielles en Ontario, et ceci pour des raisons tant sociopolitiques qu'économiques, car grâce à cette approche, l'Ontario demeurera au plan mondial un partenaire de choix des pays et anglophones et francophones.
Merci de votre attention.
M. le President : Merci, monsieur. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ? Non ? Merci.
I will just go through the list of the remaining speakers one more time. Dorothy Wynne. Lucie Fontin. Jean Lantin. Gary Prudhomme. All right. Seeing that none of those people have responded to the call, I just wonder before we close if there are any other individuals or groups in the audience who wish to make a comment to us. We would be happy to entertain those now. Seeing none, we will recess until 7 o'clock this evening. Thank you very much.
The committee recessed at 1630.
1633
SOCIÉTÉ DES UNIVERSITAIRES DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE DE L'ONTARIO
M. le Président: On va reprendre avec Raymond Tremblay de la Société des universitaires de langue française de l'Ontario.
We have copies of the brief here. We will distribute them once the clerk has had a chance to register them.
M. Tremblay : Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président, d'avoir réussi à convaincre les membres de votre comité de patienter encore un petit peu pour recevoir notre mémoire. J'ai préparé un petit texte que j'aimerais vous lire. Il est relativement bref et je pense qu'il contient les idées majeures que nous voulons soumettre ici à votre comité aujourd'hui.
Même si les questions que votre comité a le mandat d'examiner sont d'une envergure à en donner le vertige, nous tenons à vous remercier de l'occasion que vous nous donnez d'en discuter avec vous. Nous voulons vous parler aujourd'hui surtout des aspirations et des intérêts sociaux et économiques des francophones de la province, et il nous semble que ces aspirations et ces intérêts sont les mêmes, que l'Ontario s'associe ou non à d'autres provinces.
Par exemple, nous ne voyons pas pourquoi les droits linguistiques et culturels des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes devraient etre respectés seulement dans un Canada dont le Québec ferait partie, alors qu'on pourrait nous déposséder de ces droits dans un Canada dont le Québec ne ferait pas partie.
Nous ne pensons pas que nos aspirations en tant que francophones soient tellement différentes de celles des autres résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario. Nous voulons une société non seulement tolérante mais respectueuse des individus et des groupes qui la composent.
En conséquence, l'Ontario ne devrait accepter de s'associer politiquement qu'à des entités qui partagent ces objectifs. Il ne serait pas exclu que, dans cette perspective, la reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte puisse être considérée comme une manifestation concrète de ce respect que nous avons pour les autres. Nous pourrions même imaginer que l'Ontario voudrait lui aussi avoir le statut de société distincte pour avoir un contrôle aussi étendu que possible de ses propres destinées.
On a généralement tendance à associer l'Ontario au reste du Canada anglais, mais il faudrait voir si l'Ontario n'a pas plus d'affinités avec le Québec qu'avec les autres provinces du Canada. L'Ontario et le Québec sont les deux provinces les plus peuplées du pays, et tous les deux comprennent des groupes minoritaires de langue officielle de plus d'un demi-million de personnes. Des échanges culturels pourraient être développés encore plus entre ces deux provinces en reconnaissance de l'enrichissement collectif qu'apporte la présence dans une même société des langues et des cultures autochtones, française et anglaise. Les autres provinces pourraient être invitées à se joindre au tandem Ontario-Québec, mais il ne devrait jamais être acceptable que l'une ou l'autre des minorités ne soit pas respectée dans quelque coin que ce soit de ce nouveau pays. Pourquoi donc nous associerionsnous à des gens qui ne partagent pas nos principes les plus fondamentaux ?
À notre avis, en Ontario comme ailleurs, le respect de la minorité francophone devra se manifester de façon très précise : d'abord en reconnaissant le français comme l'une des deux langues officielles de la province, et ensuite en laissant aux Franco-Ontariens et aux Franco-Ontariennes le contrôle de leur destinée, entre autres par le biais de la gestion de leurs propres institutions. Ces choses se font déjà pour la minorité anglophone du Québec.
La Société des universitaires de langue française de I'Ontario considère que la communauté ontarienne ne pourra qu'être renforcée par l'épanouissement de sa minorité de langue française. Fondée en juin 1989, la SULFO compte déjà près de 200 membres en provenance des quatre coins de la province. Cette société regroupe des professeurs d'université, des administratrices, des administrateurs, des professionnels du milieu universitaire ontarien, des chercheurs ainsi que des étudiants et des étudiantes des deuxième et troisième cycles universitaires.
À l'heure où la communauté francophone de l'Ontario revendique ses institutions postsecondaires autonomes, le milieu universitaire souhaite apporter sa contribution à cet important débat, et c'est pour cette raison que les universitaires de langue française se sont regroupés en se donnant les objectifs suivants :
1. Promouvoir l'éducation universitaire de langue française en Ontario :
En regroupant les personnes désireuses de mettre leurs forces et leurs talents au service de la communauté franco-ontarienne de façon à ce que celle-ci puisse profiter de ses ressources universitaires tout en les faisant fructifier au maximum;
En collaborant à la conception et à la mise en place de structures organisationnelles qui soient appropriées aux besoins des Franco-Ontariennes et des Franco-Ontariens à chaque niveau des trois cycles de l'éducation universitaire;
En exigeant des mesures pour assurer la formation d'un contingent suffisant de Franco-Ontariennes et de Franco-Ontariens capables d'oeuvrer en français dans les différents secteurs de la vie universitaire, soit l'enseignement, la recherche, l'administration et les services à la communauté;
En agissant comme porte-parole auprès des autorités gouvernementales pour faire reconnaître les besoins des Franco-Ontariennes et des Franco-Ontariens dans le domaine universitaire, et c'est un peu en fonction de cet objectif-là que je me présente devant vous aujourd'hui;
En établissant des liens avec les associations provinciales d'enseignantes et d'enseignants de tous les niveaux ainsi qu'avec les associations provinciales et nationales qui ont pour but de promouvoir et de développer les droits des Canadiens français et des Canadiennes françaises;
En favorisant le développement de ressources, de services et de produits culturels de langue française.
2. Promouvoir les intérêts professionnels de ses membres.
3. Fournir un lieu privilégié de réflexion concertée sur l'avenir de la société franco-ontarienne et sur le rôle de l'université dans le développement de cette société.
Les objectifs de votre comité semblent rejoindre en de nombreux points ceux de notre association, et nous sommes heureux et heureuses de pouvoir apporter une contribution au travail de votre groupe.
Je vous remercie beaucoup de votre attention.
1610
M. le President : Est-ce qu il y a des questions ? Monsieur Beer.
M. Beer : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président, et merci pour la présentation. Je comprends que vous êtes venu de Hearst et donc je suis content que nous pouvons vous écouter.
En parlant du niveau postsecondaire, comme vous le savez fort bien, on a maintenant la LCité collégiale à Ottawa, il y a l'étude que l'on a faite sur le niveau collégial dans le Nord et dans le Sud et on parle aussi de la question de l'université. Quel en est votre point de vue ? Est-ce que votre association a un point de vue sur la question comment on pourrait structurer une université de langue française ? Par exemple, est-ce qu'on veut avoir un centre ou est-ce que ce serait peut-être en regroupant les collèges de Hearst, Laurentienne, Ottawa... Comment est-ce que vous envisagez l'établissement d'une université pas bilingue mais de langue française ?
M. Tremblay : Les idées qui mijotent présentement vont dans le sens de la création d'une université francophone homogène de langue française, mais à multiples campus dans le style d'universités qu'on connaît, par exemple, de l'Université du Québec, de l'Université de Moncton et aussi des universités qu'on connaît dans plusieurs États américains. Donc, c'est bien certain que la création d'une telle université impliquerait la présence de divers campus dans les différentes régions de la province puisqu'il faudra bien certainement desservir la population francophone là où elle se trouve, et elle se trouve un peu dispersée dans la province.
M. Beer : Est-ce que vous avez fait la même recommandation au sujet d'un collège francophone pour le Nord, un collège communautaire avec peut-etre multiples campus, ou pensez-vous que ce serait mieux d'avoir un collège quelque part dans le Nord ?
M. Tremblay : Si je réponds à cette question, je dépasse un peu le mandat de l'association que je représente.
M. Beer : À titre personnel ?
M. Tremblay : Je pense que le même principe...
M. Beer : Ça pose la même question, le même problème jusqu'à un certain point. Est-ce qu'il faut regrouper tout le monde dans un centre et est-ce que ça va répondre aux besoins communautaires, ou est-il mieux en effet d'établir quelque chose un peu différent comme les campus multiples ?
M. Tremblay : Non, très succinctement, il ne faut certainement pas essayer de regrouper tout le monde dans le même endroit, parce que c'est une formule impossible. Et c'est une formule qui, peut-etre surtout pour les gens du Nord comme nous, n'a pas de bon sens parce que, lorsqu'on regroupe dans certains endroits, on a tendance à regrouper dans les endroits les plus peuplés et ça veut toujours dire que le Nord se fait vider par des formules comme celles-là. Donc, très certainement, je ne pense pas qu'il y ait personne dans le Nord qui va souhaiter ce genre de solution.
Vous allez avoir la chance de faire une tournée du Nord de la province avec votre comité et je pense que ça va vous donner une bonne idée de quoi ça a l'air, le Nord. Donner des services dans une région comme celle-là, il faut être présent dans le plus grand nombre possible de communautés. Il faut inventer des institutions qui sont adaptées à ces circonstances-là.
M. le Président : Merci. Dernière question. Monsieur Bisson.
M. Bisson : Premièrement, j'aimerais vous remercier pour être venu devant notre comité pour parler d'une question qui est très importante : l'éducation postsecondaire. C'est une question à laquelle il faut répondre dans cette province de la même façon qu'au Québec pour les anglophones minoritaires. M. Beer a touché un peu au point dont je voulais parler, mais peut-être un peu plus précisément sur une idée : premièrement, comme FrancoOntarien ici, comment vous sentez-vous envers la situation qu'en Ontario on n'a pas de programmes postsecondaires pour la minorité francophone comparé à ceux de la minorité anglophone au Québec ?
La deuxième affaire, vous avez touché un peu au point de la deuxième partie de la question que je voulais poser.
Mais l'autre affaire est, voyez-vous comme option l'utilisation d'autres installations qui sont déjà en place, ou est-ce que ça a besoin d'être une bâtisse totalement séparée dans un endroit totalement isolé des autres campus qui sont déjà en place ?
M. Tremblay : Je vais reprendre la dernière question puis peut-être essayer de remonter à la première partie de votre question. Il me semble que l'important, et ce que nous revendiquons de plus en plus pour la communauté francophone, est la création d'institutions homogènes de langue française gérées par les francophones. Maintenant, comment est-ce que ça va se concrétiser dans la réalité ? Je pense qu'il y a plusieurs formules possibles à partir du moment où les principes sont acceptés.
Il est important de reconnaître que, surtout au niveau postsecondaire, nous avons tenté l'expérience au cours surtout des vingt dernières années, mais ça fait une trentaine d'années déjà que l'Université Laurentienne existe en tant que question bilingue, que l'Université d'Ottawa existe comme institution publique -- ça fait déjà vingt-cinq ans qu'elle s'est donné un mandat bilingue très clair.
L'expérience a démontré que ce genre d'institution ne répond pas bien aux besoins des francophones, que ce sont en quelque sorte des foyers d'assimilation et à toutes fins utiles. Quand on y regarde de près, on se dit : « Bien, au fond, à quoi est-ce que ça sert d'investir de l'argent pour donner des services aux francophones dans des institutions de ce genre qui ne produisent pas les résultats souhaités ?» Donc, c'est bien certain que les principes de base, l'homogénéité linguistique des institutions homogènes de langue française gérées par les francophones, c'est une solution qui est relativement simple et parfois il m 'arrive de me demander pourquoi, au niveau de la province, on a tellement de réticence à nous accorder ce genre d/institution. Parce qu'au fond, nous disons que si nous avions ce genre d'institution, nous aurions la chance de nous développer dans un milieu qui est propice au développement des francophones, dans un milieu favorable à notre épanouissement et dans un milieu où il est agreable pour nous de vivre puisque nous pourrons y vivre en français et nous instruire en français.
Donc, je pense qu'il y a tellement de bonnes raisons pour mettre sur pied des institutions comme celles-là. J'essaie de trouver pourquoi on hésiterait tellement à le faire et je vous avoue que ça me laisse encore perplexe.
M. Bisson : Merci.
M. Tremblay : Je ne sais pas si j'ai répondu...
M. Bisson : Oui. C'est ce qu'on voulait entendre. Merci bien.
The Chair: Before we close, I was told that one of our speakers who is listed for this evening is here, and I do not know if she still is here and this committee wishes to hear her now. It would actually ease up some of the pressure for the evening schedule. Is Shirley O'Connor here? She may have come in and gone or she may still be here, I do not know. Shirley O'Connor? No. Okay. Then we will break until 7 o'clock this evening.
The committee recessed at 1651.
The committee resumed at 1908.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We are happy to resume our hearings here this evening at the Timmins High and Vocational School in Timmins. This is the sixth day of our hearings. We had a full afternoon session here, and we are continuing this evening with a number of speakers as well.
JEANOT LEGRANGE
The Chair: The first person I would like to call is Jeanot LeGrange.
Mr LeGrange: I would like to begin by saying that I am a francophone. I was born in Quebec and I had to attend school in Montreal. My parents decided to move to northern Ontario, and I had to move back and forth from my parents' home to the school in Montreal, because there are no francophone deaf schools in the north. There is a great lack of services for that, so I was sent to Montreal.
I would like to see better services for the north, because it separates our families. When my brother was born -- I have a deaf brother as well -- he also had to go to school, and we looked at where he was going to go. Do we have to go all the way back to Quebec again, to Montreal, to go to school, to get services in French for deaf people? We have no place to learn here in northern Ontario and we need to use our own sign language, which is called langue des signes québecois. There are no services like that in the north for francophones who are deaf. Anyway, my family had to cope as best it could with both myself and my little brother. Of course, we used LSQ, which is a sign language of French. My parents were very frustrated with having to send us far away.
We have no interpreters here. We need interpreters in our community who can understand our language, who can help us in the courts and in the banks and things like that. We have no interpreter services here. It is something we would like to see established. Even if we are looking for work, how are we supposed to get proper jobs and go for job interviews without that kind of service? We need to get that service in our language, LSQ. There are anglophone deaf people here who use American sign language, but they would have a better time acquiring the services of an interpreter from the south than we would. We have no francophone LSQ interpreters, so I need you to have a sense of that. I guess that is what I want to say.
Mr Malkowski: You were born in Quebec, correct?
Mr LeGrange: Yes, I was.
Mr Malkowski: If Quebec were to opt to become independent, what would you say about that?
Mr LeGrange: I guess I would like to see Quebec remain within Canada. I would not want to see them go independent.
Mr Martin: For you the key to any success and reaching your potential in this country we call Canada is education, and education in your own language?
Mr LeGrange: That is correct. I think that is the key, having LSQ in an environment where I can learn. The francophone schools are in Quebec. There is nothing here in the north. We would like to see that developed and we would like to see resources. We need that now. We live here. This is our home. We should not have to leave to get the services.
Mr Beer: One of the things we might want to look at is that between Ontario and Quebec there is an exchange agreement, and we have in the past used that to try to bring experts, specialists, people with particular skills we do not have in this province into Ontario. It may be that one of the things we want to explore is whether the schools in Quebec that are providing the LSQ training -- for example, in dentistry we have places the province takes from the French-language dental schools in Quebec so that those francophones in Ontario who want to do their dental degree in French can do that. We may want to have a look at whether we could do some reciprocal programs around LSQ, so that we would then have some interpreters in the north. You are probably the fifth person who has said, "Look, we've got a real problem around interpreters," and there may be some practical things, at least in the first instance, that we can do in making use of the schools that exist while we try to develop that capacity, perhaps at one of the community colleges in Ontario, perhaps La LCité collégiale in Ottawa, where we could actually then train our own LSQ interpreters. It is something I think we should look at.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Before calling up the next speaker, I want to do something I omitted to do before. I appreciate the brevity of the previous presentation. If we could keep the presentations to within the 20-minute mark for organizations and the 10-minute mark for individuals, it would allow us to get through the list of speakers we have this evening, plus a few others who asked this afternoon to be able to speak to us. That would help us a great deal and allow everyone who wants to speak a chance.
TIMMINS LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: I would call next Roger Ladouceur from the Timmins Labour Council. I will ask the Vice-Chair of the committee to take the chair.
Mr Ladouceur: First, I would like to welcome the committee to Timmins and thank you for this opportunity to speak. It will probably be a little different from what you have heard the rest of the day. I was not here this afternoon, but it seems to be the Quebec thing as well as the Constitution. As important as that is, and I do believe it is a very important thing, I also have other concerns on the federal level, as a similar problem labour faces. As Quebec has been important, other people have problems as well.
In our union we seem to be having problems with carriers for sick pay. They are giving our members the runaround. I think the government, the provincial as well as the federal, has to interfere and make sure these carriers are not abusing the system. The system presently in place is one where the carriers keep writing to the person, saying: "Your claim is under review. We need more medical information." The companies are getting this medical information and holding it against these people who are sick, saying, "Well, now you're too sick to do the job you have," because the carriers keep demanding more medical information. I think this is something that has to be addressed on a provincial level as well as a federal level, to ensure that these companies and these carriers do not keep doing this.
As well, I deal with layoffs on an ongoing basis. I think there should be one rule across the country for severance pay, instead of just stopping it at 26 weeks. It should be a week for every year of service. Why should 26 weeks be the magic number when a person has worked 40 years in a plant? If we are going to act as a country, we should have one rule governing severance pay. It varies from province to province.
Anti-scab legislation should be a federal thing as well as a provincial thing. Nobody likes to go on strike, and when they do -- first, the government gives you a right to belong to a union. Second, they give you the right to have a strike. Third, most important of all, they do not let you protect your job: they allow scabs to take your job. I think that should be addressed as well, plus the violence it causes on picket lines. We have had numerous killed and run over, and some of these people were not even charged, as if it is an acceptable thing in 1990 to run people over because they happen to be out on strike.
Deregulation: We have all seen what that has done to our country. Worst of all is free trade. Throughout Canada we lost 226,000 jobs. The federal government has not been able to prove that it has created one job. I think that is disgraceful in a country like Canada, a young country. Every man and woman should be entitled to have a job, and a good-paying job at that.
This Mexico free trade deal scares me, it really does, because we see what happened with free trade with the States. Imagine if we start trying to compete against Mexico, when their average wage is something like 65 cents an hour.
In legislation on plant closure, I am sure we have all heard about the layoffs and the plants that are going to Mexico for the cheaper wages. Companies have been trying to get out of even severance pay. We have snakes for employers in this province, where they close their company down, declare bankruptcy, hide the money, do not pay their people, then open up under a different name down the street. This has to stop. That is unjust to all Canadians when employers can do things like that. There are some good employers out there but there are also some bad ones.
Those were just some of the concerns I wanted to raise. I would like to thank you for this opportunity of addressing you. Any questions?
Mr F. Wilson: Definitely. I have asked similar questions of other labour and union representatives who came before us. The labour movement, with its entire organization and all the activists like yourself who are involved, and the litany of problems -- it is not a complete list, I understand, you have given us this morning -- what can you see as labour's role in what we call the constitutional debate? Can you see it from an educational point of view? Can you see using the apparatus of labour education to inform people, or have you some of your own ideas?
Mr Ladouceur: One thing we have to do is look at the colleges we have already built to retrain some of these laid-off workers. I am not opposed to knitting and crocheting -- I am sure that is a lot of fun -- but instead of having these classes at northern colleges and universities, things like that, these should be upgrading and training laid-off workers.
I think it is time that management as well as unions -- I guess they are to blame to a certain degree -- sit down and work some of their problems out. We saw a problem at the Dome mine in Timmins that was just terrible. There was a strike there that did not have to be, because some people dug in their heels and did not care and are on the borderline of breaking every law in this province, and it looks like they are going to get away with it. That is the kind of attitude that creates more problem and more dissension than we presently have in this province and probably in this country.
Mr F. Wilson: I know it is difficult to look beyond those things, but I was more getting at the vast resources that are at the call of organized labour, especially in the steelworkers, with your educational apparatus. Do you see a role for that kind of apparatus, for the union movement itself, in the unity debate? Can you see them taking some kind of role other than the traditional one labour has taken?
Mr Ladouceur: I would hope so, that they would take a more active role and a more positive note.
1920
Mr Beer: I wonder if you could tell us how, to this point in time, the recession has impacted on the labour movement in this area and what your sense is of what is happening. Last week we were in a number of places. including Sault Ste Marie, and we certainly had a pretty grim picture of what might be happening further in terms of Algoma and so on. But what is the situation here, and how do you see the next six months to a year in terms of the labour situation?
Mr Ladouceur: We have had layoffs in pretty well every industry in Timmins, as well as the lumber. The gold mines up here have had about 700 layoffs in the last eight months; 300 coming from my local, another 300-and-some coming from Placer Dome, some more at Detour Lake. It has just been terrible as far as the mining industry is concerned, partly due to the recession, partly due to the price of gold, and also due to the flow-through shares, which were very popular when they first came out. I guess the abuse was there, and somebody stopped it; I will not dwell on that too much.
Mr Beer: That was a federal program, right?
Mr Ladouceur: Right. I would also like to point out that Quebec has a flow-through share program from the province itself, which -- I do not want to get too deeply involved in this flow-through share -- just creates so much work, it is hard for me not to feel it was a positive thing.
The problem there was the abuse of some of the companies, and instead of dealing with the companies that were abusing the system, they just took it right out. I think that was a serious mistake. Obviously, in Timmins that hurt us bad.
Mr Beer: That kind of program helps prospecting and so on, so it created --
Mr Ladouceur: Yes, new mines developing. If a new mine gets on side, you are probably looking at an extra 300 or 400 jobs. The spinoff of this 300 or 400 jobs probably creates another 400 or 500, the restaurant business and the hotel business, all over.
Mr Harnick: At the outset of your presentation, you talked about the need for federal involvement dealing with insurance, federal involvement dealing with severance, federal involvement dealing with the problem with scabs. Does labour feel we should have a stronger central federal government, or should we be reducing the powers of the federal government and giving more power to the provinces? What is labour's point of view?
Mr Ladouceur: That is a good question. I am almost contradicting myself. That is roughly what I would have to do on that question. I think the provinces should have more power, but assuming they cannot have more power is why I talked on a federal note. I would like to see the provinces have more power in this area. I think it would enhance the government's position. Whether it be Ontario or any of the provinces, I think they deserve and should have more power to deal with some of these issues, as well as the banking industry. I think the provinces should have more power.
Mr Offer: My question is somewhat taken from Mr Harnick's line of questioning. We had some presentation last week which spoke about some of the issues of labour. While addressing some of the substantive matters, such as some of the things you have brought forward -- anti-scab legislation, minimum wage, plant closure -- they also went on to state that it is important that the legislation, which is provincial in nature -- you have just in your previous answer alluded to that -- it is important that there be a standardized type of labour protection across the country. They stated not only that barriers should be reduced for interprovincial trade but also that the labour legislation, which is currently, in the main, a provincial responsibility, should be transferred to the federal government or for federal responsibility, so that whatever that legislation might be it would be common across the country, dealing with issues such as minimum wage or plant closure or severance pay and the like. I am wondering if you can share with us an observation from your standpoint as to whether this type of responsibility should remain provincial and be dealt with on a province-by-province basis or should be potentially transferred to the federal government.
Mr Ladouceur: It would be nice to get the best of both worlds. I guess that is what I was trying to allude to. You were right on if that is what you are trying to catch me on, and you are right. But I would like to have the best of all the provinces, just like we would like to have the best for our families and have the best for anybody we represent.
And if the federal government looked at the best legislation of all the provinces and put it together, I think we might be talked into it.
SERVICES À LA JEUNESSE DE HEARST
The Vice-Chair: We will next call up, from the Services à la jeunesse de Hearst, Pierre Fontaine.
M. Fontaine : J'aimerais remercier la commission de me permettre de parler au sujet de l'avenir de l'Ontario dans la Confédération. J'ai quelques questions que j'aimerais aborder, comme celle-ci : quelles valeurs partageons-nous, Canadiens français, avec les Canadiens anglais ?
Je suis venu au monde dans le nord de l'Ontario et j'ai grandi à Hearst, qui est une petite ville à majorité francophone. En grandissant, une des valeurs que je pensais qu'avaient les Canadiens est la tolérance envers les minorités et les nouveaux immigrés, et en vieillissant j'ai vu que c'était faux. Je sais que ce n'est pas tout le monde qui est de même mais dans les journaux et à la television on voit beaucoup de choses qui démontrent que les gens ne respectent pas les autres. Ils ne respectent pas les Québécois; il y a beaucoup de Québécois qui ne respectent pas les anglophones. On voit ça souvent. Ça me fait de la peine de voir ça. Le Canada a tout le temps été vu comme un pays très tolérant. Tu vas en dehors du Canada, tu vas te promener dans d'autres pays, et quand tu dis que tu es Canadien, ils vont te donner la lune. Mais on ne voit pas ça dans notre pays. Je ne comprends pas ça.
Le rôle que l'Ontario doit jouer dans la Confédération, je pense qu'il faut qu'elle commence à montrer du leadership au niveau de ses minorités et donner aux Franco-Ontariens les droits d'avoir leur éducation, leurs propres institutions et les laisser gérer ces institutions. Je suis sûr que si on nous donne les outils pour nous épanouir, on va le faire. Il y a beaucoup de gens qui ont les capacités de faire ça. On serait capable de le faire en ayant nos outils pour nous épanouir et on serait beaucoup plus productif au niveau de la province. On serait peut-être moins ignorant sur certaines choses qui se passent autour de nous. On serait plus sensible aux autres. Mais là, it faut tout le temps se battre d'un bord puis de l'autre. C'est bien beau vouloir se battre, mais il faut que de temps en temps on reçoive. On l'entend tout le temps, c'est tout le temps des batailles. Il n'y a rien de positif qui passe dans les nouvelles. Je trouve ça déplorable. Il me semble que c'est l'image qu'on donne aux jeunes et ça se reflète sur tout le monde et je pense qu'il faut changer cette image-là et commencer à dialoguer ensemble et à essayer de se comprendre.
Je trouve que le Canada anglais et le Québec ne se comprennent pas. Les Québécois ne savent pas ce qui se passe dans l'Ouest, ils ne savent pas ce qui se passe dans le nord de l'Ontario et nous, on ne sait pas non plus ce qui se passe au Québec. Il y a un gros manque de communication qui se fait. Je pense que l'Ontario doit jouer un rôle important là-dedans. Il faut essayer de commencer à créer des liens. Il y en a qui sont faits mais il faut travailler plus fort là-dessus, aussi au niveau du reste du Canada.
Au niveau de l'éducation, je pense que la clé importante pour la minorité franco-ontarienne est d'avoir nos propres institutions et de gérer nos propres institutions. Il y a déjà du beau qui a été fait mais il faut que ça continue et que ça vienne un peu plus vite. Il ne faut pas attendre un autre 60 ans avant d'avoir de nouvelles choses. Il faut que ça roule plus pour démontrer qu'on est sérieux dans nos affaires.
Une autre chose que je voudrais ajouter avant de terminer, c'est que je trouve que les gouvernements depuis les derniers 15, même 20 ans promettent beaucoup de choses, mais un courant du pouvoir ça change tout. C'est le moment pour qu'il y ait des gouvernements qui deviennent responsables de ce qu'ils disent et pas faire des illusions aux gens, « On va faire ci, on va faire ça », puis rien ne se passe.
1930
Je pense que ça a fait que le monde n'a plus confiance dans le gouvernement. Ils n'ont plus confiance dans l'autorité parce qu'ils sont sensés -- il est temps que ça change et que le gouvernement devienne plus responsable, qu'il commence à écouter plus les gens, la masse pour savoir ce qu'ils veulent et pas faire des promesses pour paraître bien, c'est peut-être ça. Ça a fini de paraître bien, il faut passer à l'action. Tout le monde fait beaucoup de promesses, ça paraît bien, mais quand vient le temps de passer à 'action, ça prend du leadership.
Si le Canada est en train de s'effondrer, je pense que ça en est une des raisons. C'est pas mal tout ce que je voulais dire. Je vous remercie de m'avoir écouté.
Le Vice-Prdsident : Vous avez une couple de questions, Monsieur Beer ?
M. Beer : Merci, Monsieur le Président.
Vous êtes ici en tant que représentant des Services de la jeunesse de Hearst. Imaginez un moment que vous étiez le bon Dieu un jour et que vous aviez tous les pouvoirs pour faire certaines choses, en effet pour aider l'épanouissement de la jeunesse dans cette région de la province. On sait qu'il y a maintenant des écoles, le college de Hearst de la Chaîne française, les services qui viennent du projet de loi 8. De quoi pensez-vous la jeunesse francophone a-t-elle besoin, et qu'est-ce que vous feriez ? Que peut-on faire, disons, au niveau de la province pour vraiment aider l'épanouissement de la jeunesse francophone dans le Nord ?
M. Fontaine : Je pense qu'il faut donner les outils nécessaires à la jeunesse pour s'épanouir.
M. Beer : Comme quoi ?
M. Fontaine : Vous avez nommé le collège universitaire dans la région de Hearst. Ça en est un. Ce n'est pas toute la couche de la société, mais ça en est une partie. Juste dans une université et au collège il y a beaucoup d'activités qui sont en français au niveau de la culture. Peut-être que ça a un effet sur le restant de la population à Hearst et puis ce qui l'entoure.
On est un service de prévention primaire en français. Je ne sais pas si on est bilingue, mais la plupart des gens à Hearst sont des francophones, donc tous nos services ici sont en français. Si un anglophone vient, il peut participer à nos activités, mais ça c'est une autre chose. Puisque là il y a un milieu où les jeunes peuvent vivre en français puis tout se fait en français, ça aide leur épanouissement s'ils sont capables d'avoir des renseignements sur le SIDA en français, des choses de même. Mais il l'a dans notre service. Donner la chance aux jeunes de se rencontrer, avoir des plateformes où les jeunes pourraient se rencontrer et discuter de toutes sortes de choses, ce serait vraiment intéressant parce qu'on est éloigné de tout le monde.
Dans notre région il y a beaucoup de francophones. À Hearst, 95% de la population est francophone. Mais si on va en dehors, on a juste à aller à Kapuskasing, Timmins, ce n'est pas la même chose. On n'a pas souvent la chance de parler avec ces gens-là. On n'a pas la même conception des choses puisqu'on n'a jamais eu à nous battre pour nos droits tout le temps; tout est français dans notre région. Quand je restais à Hearst, je pensais que le Canada était parfait et que tout le monde était comme nous, mais quand tu vas en dehors c'est pas la même chose, puis là c'est une claque dans la face, ça ne t'aide pas à réaliser les problèmes.
Mr Martin: Your presentation was typically refreshing coming from a young person and you had a lot of good ideas. One of them I just wanted to highlight, and it sort of follows on to something you just said there, that maybe responding to what you just talked about, that we sort of have -- and we have heard this term before -- two solitudes in our country. What this committee should perhaps recommend is that we declare a year of truce.
Mr Fontaine: Yes.
Mr Martin: And in that year, we could have exchange programs, like, nobody would argue or fight with anybody. That would be against the law. But people from Quebec would be encouraged to go into English Canada, people from English Canada would be encouraged to go to Quebec and the native people would be encouraged to come too and we would be encouraged to go into native communities and all the different cultures would share and we would have international festivals of food and dancing and maybe the young people could organize it all. Then after the year was up, we could talk about this subject again. What do you think?
M. Fontaine : Je pense que ce serait une bonne idée.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I really did appreciate your presentation. You obviously have a touch with a group of people that we have not heard a lot from and that is the young people of the north in particular and certainly the young francophones in Ontario. You said something about services in French. Could you just give us a little bit broader perspective of what kinds of things you do for the young people in Hearst?
M. Fontaine : On est un centre de prévention pnimaire, puis on essaie d'organiser des activités auprès des jeunes francophones de notre communauté pour les garder en dehons de la rue, qu'ils aillent faire des cours, tout ça. On a une Maison des jeunes, comme ça s'appelle; c'est une maison qui esi gérée par les jeunes où les jeunes organisent leurs propres activités. C'est eux qui décident de ce qu'ils veulent faire, quelles sortes d'activités ils veulent faire. Nous on est là, pas en tant que dirigeants mais juste pour voir que les choses qu'ils veulent faire sont réalistes.
Un des projets qu'on fait à la Maison des jeunes c'esi qu'on offre des ateliers sur le suicide, le SIDA, d'autres choses de ce genre.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Could you tell me if the introduction and now full implementation of some aspects of Bill 8 have been helpful to your service, or would it have developed the same without Bill 8?
M. Fontaine : Je parle pour Hearst. C'était déjà francophone. La Loi 8 n'a pas aidé notre cause, mais je suis sûr que dans d'autres régions ça a beaucoup aidé. Mais notre service était déjà bilingue puis francophone, on offrait déjà le service.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: If I may, I just have one little final, and you get some finals, monsieur. The links you talked about, could you say a little bit about the links that you think could be created? We have already talked about the tools but you used the words "tools and links."
M. Fontaine : Okay, des outils pour le développement; je parle au niveau d'éducation, avoir des collèges francophones, une université francophone --
Mrs Y. O'Neill: No, but you said the links. I heard all of that. You said links as well with the rest of Canada.
M. Fontaine : Des liens qu'on pourrait avoir; je sais qu'il y a beaucoup d'échanges qui se font entre certaines provinces au niveau de la jeunesse. C'est plutôt le Québec; il y a bien des programmes où ils vont chercher du monde en Ontario. Moi, à Hearst, je reçois beaucoup de documents avec des programmes qui parlent de bureaux du Québec en Ontario pour emporter des Ontaniens au Québec, pour vivre en français là pour deux, trois semaines pendant l'été.
Mais nous autres, je ne sais pas si on a en Ontario ce genre de programme ou même si on a un bureau de l'Ontario au Québec. Mais je sais, au niveau de la jeunesse, que le Bureau du Québec en Ontario aide beaucoup. Ils vont donner des subventions pour des rencontres entre francophones en Ontario. En Ontario je ne sais pas si on l'a, mais avec ce qu'on voit on dirait qu'eux veulent plus l'épanouiissement des francophones en Ontario comme ils donnent de l'argent. Mais je ne sais pas si on a ces programmes d'échanges.
1940
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Yes, we do care. We do, maybe more so. Merci.
Ms Churley: Because you spoke so personally, I am going to speak personally to you for a minute and put a new twist on it. You said something that struck a chord in me. I came from Newfoundland. Of course, in Quebec right now Clyde Wells is not very popular, and other places. But I grew up in Labrador and when I left home and went to Ottawa to study, I was discriminated against as a Newfoundlander because those were the days in the late 1960s when Newfoundlanders were still thought to be lesser than, particularly, Upper Canadians, English-speaking Canadians in Ontario. It was quite a shock for me, being a big fish in a small pond, as you were talking about in your town, to be treated as a lesser person.
It was so bad, and I was young and vulnerable, as we often are when we leave home, that I thought I had to lie to people about where I was from for them to like me. I did that for two years. I told people I was from England. It is interesting that I said England -- not France or somewhere else but England. So here I have admitted on TV now that I lied once, but it was self-preservation.
It look me about two years of my life before I figured out that I had just got involved with some racist, awful people and that in fact there are a lot of nice people who would like me anyway. But what it did to my self-esteem and that is from somebody who spoke English and basically fitted in with the culture and what it did to my self-esteem and how difficult it was for me to come out of that and believe in myself again, and I assume that happens a lot. That is my question to you, to young francophones who go off, especially from towns where you speak your language and then have to deal with the whole English world.
M. Fontaine : Oui. Je pense que c'est un des problèmes aussi. Quand tu arrives, le Nord de l'Ontanio c'est des petits villages puis à Hearst il y a trois, quatre gros centres. Le restant, c'est tout des petits villages. Il y a beaucoup de ces villages où les gens parlent rien que le français, puis là tu arrives à Ottawa. Ils disent que c'est bilingue, n'importe où, tu arrives là puis c'est tout un nouveau monde. Tu n'es plus chez toi puis tu as de la misère à t'identifier avec ces gens. Je le sais. J'ai vécu ça. J'étais à Thunder Bay. Je suis resté là juste une année. Je n'étais pas capable de fonctionner là-dedans en tant que francophone.
II y avait beaucoup d'anglophones mais il y a eu des fois là -- « You Frenchie » -- puis je me suis dit que je n'ai pas besoin de vivre ça. Je suis aussi bien de retourner dans ma petite ville. C'est là que je me sens le mieux puisque en dehors de ça, si tu n'es pas avec des francophones, tu ne te sens pas bien, puis c'est de même que je me sentais à Thunder Bay. Je ne me sentais pas chez nous, je ne me sentais même pas dans mon pays. C'est juste à six heures d'auto de ma petite ville mais c'était complètement différent, puis j'ai eu de la misère à fonctionner dans ce système-là. C'est aussi simple que ça.
Le Vice-Président : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Fontaine.
Liliane Laforest? From the Kapuskasing Labour Council, Enzo Altobelli?
DAVID WALLBRIDGE
The Vice-Chair: All right, then we will go to David Wallbnidge. Mr Wallbridge, you will have 10 minutes in case you have not been told. We have allowed more time.
Mr Wallbridge: I do not think I will be that long. I am not sure I will be able to impart much wisdom to the committee this evening, except that I have some experience living in Quebec. I have just finished a law program at McGill University and have had occasion to make some observations as to what I think the situation is there and what I think that this committee might appreciate in terms of a future negotiating position for this province with the people of Quebec, or perhaps a better way of putting it, with the government.
Obviously the cultural question in Quebec is the most important question, and I suppose as Canadians a lot of people share sympathy for the question of cultural survival. The real question, I think, in most people's minds in Canada is how is this best achieved.
In the coming months, and I suppose to some extent this evening, we have had allusions to divisions of power and which government should do this or do that, but what we are really speaking about is a turf battle between bureaucracies. I think this is why a number of people are sort of alienated from the debate, because really we are talking about governments that are interested in maintaining a certain amount of power for themselves, and the people really are interested, as we have seen today, in everyday subjects: jobs, the economy, things like this.
But having said that, why is this question important to Quebec? Why is this division-of-power question important to Quebec? I think it is because the role of government in Quebec is historically different than the role of government in Ontario. I do not mean to say it is less important in Ontario, but I just think it is different, because the government in Quebec has long been an instrument of policy in terms of cultural preservation.
That is why, for them, their size of government in relation to the federal government is really important. They are interested in keeping their educated people, their French-speaking people within the confines of their province because they see it as the best way to preserve their culture, the reason being that there is a popular mythology -- and it is grounded in some fact -- that when people leave the province, they are subject to greater pressures of assimilation.
J'aimerais faire allusion brièvement aux commentaires faits par mon ami de Hearst. Il a mentionné que lorsqu'il sort de chez lui, il se trouve dans une situation où il se sent mal à l'aise parce qu'il ne peut pas fonctionner au niveau quotidien auquel il est habitué.
In a nutshell, my friend has alluded to the problem of Quebec within Canada. We worry about allegiances in Canada a lot, and that is because, I think, we still perceive ourselves perhaps as a melting pot in the sense that we feel that Quebec's allegiance first and foremost to itself or the people of Quebec to its province is a dangerous thing. Maybe it is a matter of degree, maybe it is not such a dangerous thing and maybe it is not something that we cannot understand, given what my friend has just said: that is to say, the people there feel most comfortable there because they can speak in French and they can function in French and that is a pleasure for them. When they leave Quebec, it is not as easy to function in French. As a matter of fact, we well know that although we do have a certain Utopian vision of Canada as a bilingual country, in effect there are many areas in this country where people cannot function in French.
So when we get worried about allegiances and everybody should be Canadian first, maybe we should be Canadian first, but maybe we should understand that there is a sort of dual allegiance, and for very concrete reasons. How would we feel in Ontario if we were the only English-speaking province and we were surrounded by a sea of French-speaking people? We would feel a great allegiance to Ontario, and I would suggest then perhaps to the rest of Canada. Again I am speaking in matters of degree.
The danger in that, I believe, is that this can be used as an instrument or perhaps as an excuse for good government. Having said that Quebec is a little different than Ontario and that its relationship to its people as government is different, what I think we are dealing with these days is perhaps the wrong shade of the right thing. We have a government which has a legitimate role in the protection of its people. But after a certain extent, it is my submission, and this is based on my experience in Quebec, that it has become an excuse for good government, and to some extent it is no coincidence that often these debates are raised around election time.
1950
That sounds perhaps cynical but there is some truth to it. Having said that, what position should Ontario be taking? In my submission, we should not be overly concerned about the status quo any more. I think what we should be doing is sitting down and asking ourselves, fine, what can the provinces do and what can the federal government do? But if Quebec takes a different position, we should just be bearing in mind that its relationship to its people and the role that that government must play is different than that of Ontario and it is different than the rest of Canada.
I just think that what needs to be addressed is the problem with some degree of intellectual honesty. If we have a problem in Canada on Quebec vis-à-vis cultural survival, well, let's deal with it. Let's not pretend that all the provinces have to be the same. If we have a particular problem, let's deal with the problem and let's not let the politicians, in Ontario or in Quebec, run away with some rhetorical flourishes about what is provincial or federal. Let's deal with the problem as it is and avoid the risks of intellectual dishonesty that plagued the last process.
I think people were generally interested in consensus in Canada. But I think the way that the process unravelled and why it unravelled was because we were given these concepts, distinct society and so on, and people did not really know what that was about. I think what bothered people really was that the governments were not giving them enough credit for their own intelligence. People really wanted to feel that they were going to be consulted and treated fairly, and I think part of what went wrong with the process is that we were not presented with the problems honestly. Those are my submissions.
Ms Churley: You mentioned that we have to look at this problem realistically, and I agree with you on that. I mean we cannot be playing games around it. I am curious, though, as to what you would say about the problem for instance in 1982 when Trudeau brought the Constitution home, left the aboriginal peoples out then and said, "Oh, we will have a conference." Again with Meech there is, "We will deal with it later," and the same thing with women.
Beyond the process there were some real serious problems in terms of leaving people out who should have been in, and I am curious as to what you have to say about that in the present process; also how you feel about what kinds of things you would be willing to see in terms of the kind of social programs and the kinds of equality that have been so hard fought for that could be lost if we do not do this carefully. I know that is a big question but --
Mr Wallbridge: Yes. I will try to address it as best I can. You know it is really a hard thing to look back sometimes at, without getting into historical revisions. You can say, "Well, if you had done this in 1982," or "If this had been done then," and to some extent I perhaps am guilty of that as well. What lessons can we learn from that? I think that any time you go to a public forum you will have, as we have seen today, a number of interest groups who would like to have their point of view addressed.
The problem with the Quebec question is that it may be very difficult to do that. In a sense we almost have to acknowledge the primacy of that particular problem. That is one of the reasons that the amending problem in the Constitution has been a problem. It is because so many people have so many legitimate concerns, all of which are legitimate, that they feel usurped to some extent when someone else's problem is addressed first. But maybe this is such a delicate problem that we are going to have to trust ourselves to deal with it in some kind of a sequence is what I am getting at.
As to legitimate concerns about equality issues, I think that the people are concerned about that. They are concerned about terms like "distinct society." They are concerned about social justice across the country. The people have the political will --
The Vice-Chair: I would ask you to wrap up. We are running out of time.
Mr Wallbridge: That is all I had to say.
Ms Churley: Maybe we can talk later.
ABORIGINAL URBAN ALLIANCE
The Vice-Chair: We next call the Aboriginal Urban Alliance of Ontario, represented by Andy Rickard.
Again, we would remind people that we are giving organizations tonight 20 minutes to make presentations and individuals 10 minutes, so that we have as much time as possible to be able to allow as many presentations as possible in the short time that we have. Mr Rickard, if you are ready?
Mr Rickard: [Remarks in Cree]
Ladies and gentlemen of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, we are pleased to make this presentation this evening. My initial welcoming remarks were conducted in my own language to demonstrate to you that French and English languages in this country are not the only languages what we know.
It is a historical fact that my own aboriginal language was the main language used before any Europeans came here. The reason that we wanted you to hear the language was to demonstrate to you how our forefathers felt when your ancestors first spoke to them in their European language, and I am not being facetious saying that. These are facts, and I think we have to share historical facts together.
If you bear with me, I might take a little longer than 20 minutes to explain this, so I would ask you to give me an extra minute or two.
First of all, I wish to explain our group which we are representing this particular evening. We recently formed our organization that we call the Aboriginal Urban Alliance, which we formally established on 29 December 1990, to represent our unique aspirations and concerns as treaty status aboriginal people living off our reserves in Ontario. For your own information, there are over 50,000 people that we can categorize as urban aboriginal people, and I am giving you the background information which will provide you with the description of who we are and what our organization is all about.
2000
I am sorry. I am paraphrasing this presentation. I hope you do not mind. It might shorten the presentation.
We are not presently being represented by our own band council while we are off our reserves, nor by our tribal councils, nor by any existing political association in this country, nor by a friendship centre nor by a Metis non-status group. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations, our national organization, does not even represent any aspect of our concerns and special aspirations and needs.
Consider the following status of our situation:
Between 40% and 50% of our people live in mainstream society throughout Ontario, sometimes without a choice because back in our reserves we lack the employment and educational opportunities.
Many of our people work, many of us own our own houses through long-term mortgage commitments and arrangements and, yes, practically all of us pay property, school and provincial sales taxes as well as the GST and any other tax that the general public now pays throughout the country.
We even dare claim that our contribution in the tax system far outweighs all the benefits that our people have been receiving since Confederation. You probably never hear that because we are busy working out there and we have not got time to enter into any bickering contest with anybody.
Many of us continue to pursue our academic education goals to demonsmrate to ourselves that we are very capable of achieving higher forms of education and professional status in mainstream Canada.
It could be said that we are almost a forgotten people. We have no representation in discussions and negotiations with governments concerning aboriginal, treaty and constitutional rights, even though we pay full taxes as citizens of this country. It might look like we are coming to a Boston tea party aboriginal-style one of these days.
Although we live off our lands, we have never given up our special status as aboriginal people, in terms of our treaty, our constitutional recognition that we have as original people.
As our background information indicates, we have decided to form our own organization to represent our concerns because we are certain that no one will speak for us if we do not act on our own now. Therefore, it is imperative that we stand up because we are not only speaking for our own treaty and aboriginal rights, but we are also very concerned about speaking for our constitutional rights that are often referred to under sections 91(24) and 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
For example, section 91(24) clearly established that "Indians and lands belonging to Indians" are the federal responsibility. Just recently section 35 further recognized the Indian, Metis and Inuit people as "the aboriginal peoples of Canada." The Constitution of Canada does not provide in there any restrictions to indicate that we have to live on our reserves to enjoy our special constitutional status.
Although these constitutional inequities exist today, we are not going to deal with them right now because we are pursuing other legal forums and processes to eradicate the situation. This introduction was intended to provide you with some awareness as to why we have organized ourselves in the way I just described.
As aboriginal taxpayers, we are very concerned about the socioeconomic and political instability of this country. While many of our own aboriginal political organizations rarely provide any directional positions or creative ideas on Canadian unity, we are often very quick to react on issues rather than to proact with substantive solutions. It may be that we are so busy just surviving, maintaining our bread and butter issues, which restricts us from taking active part in the deliberations and the debate of national unity in this country. In spite of our lack of participation on substance matters, we believe that the success in dealing with the aboriginal issues will dictate just exactly how unified and strong Canada can become in the 20th century or 21st century, because unless we have an economically strong and stable country, it is very difficult to deal with the various socioeconomic issues facing our people across this country.
I would like to now make a presentation to this committee. I will attempt to address the questions on specific areas in an enumerated form as outlined in your discussion paper entitled Changing for the Better: An Invitation to Talk About A New Canada. At the conclusion of my presentation, I will provide you with our recommendations.
The first question you have framed in your discussion paper: What are the values we share as Canadians? It is true that Canada is a diverse country with a non-revolutionary tradition and it can be claimed that it has two of the world's great languages, French and English. However, the population of this country can also be categorized as one third English, one third French and the other third possessing neither English or French as its mother tongue.
Further, the notion of two founding nations, English and French, is a historical misconception which is dividing the heart and soul of this country. Moreover, historically we know as aboriginal people that no nation of people found this country, because this country was never lost, to our knowledge. Rather, the so-called early European explorers were the ones who accidentally stumbled upon our country. They were lost. Period. This historical milestone has created insurmountable crises for us and very severe problems have also emanated from this particular phenomenon. If you look through the historical development of this country, we came very close to extinction. Consequently, in order to answer this question, we have to go beyond the unfair categorization and ill-conceived definition of two founding nations. All Canadians of different backgrounds must play a major and significant role in determining the constitutional outcome of our country under a well-formulated, regionally based federation with a strong central government.
The second question you have framed: How can we secure our future in the international economy? We cannot escape the substantive demands of a global economy in the marketplace without a competitive edge. In order to achieve a competitive edge, we believe we need an adjustment of our constitutional framework under a strong central government, with equitable powers and setup of the provincial and territorial governments with special recognition for aboriginal governments. In order to be competitive in a global marketplace, we say to you that we not only have to be unified as a direct participant, but above all we have to take part as a strong, sovereign country. In order to be a strong, sovereign country, we have to get our act together in this country.
Third: What roles should the federal and provincial governments play? These are very provocative questions. The federal government must play, in our opinion, a very strong, central role under a federation of Canada. The provincial government must also be supported to enjoy equal powers within a Constitution of Canada. While Quebec is a distinct society with its own special status by virtue of its culture, language and civil law, it should be supported to retain these historical rights. Since Quebec also enjoys language protection under the Official Languages Act, this and other distinct characteristics mentioned previously more than adequately, in our opinion, recognize Quebec as having a special status under its often referred to distinct society within its own province.
2010
Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adequately and legally protects the English and French languages in all federal institutions in all regions of Canada where numbers warrant. Therefore, any additional special status arrangements which other provincial and territorial governments do not personally enjoy must not be granted to Quebec, in our opinion. If Quebec decides to leave Canada because English Canada -- and again, a gross misinterpretation, because one third of this country is made up, as I said earlier, without French or English as its mother tongue -- does not, as I say, understand or support its desire to achieve a sovereignty association type of status, then the sacrifice and concession of Canada and other provinces, territories and aboriginal governments will be too great a price to pay.
One province cannot be granted extra powers over others, even though it may represent 25% of the country's population. At best, Quebec must not be given any more special concessions. At worst, if Quebec insists on securing its desired 22 jurisdictional areas, as indicated by the Quebec Liberal Party's recent Allaire report, that it wants from Canada, then there may be no other choice but to let Quebec leave Canada's Confederation, as it indicates it will. But the bottom line must be very, very clear as well: Quebec has to recognize that it must share 25% of the national debt, along with the other plus sides of the assets and liabilities equation.
Fourth question: How do we achieve justice for Canada's aboriginal people? This is where I get excited. My blood pressure goes up when I read that kind of question.
We do not want to dwell on rhetorical assumptions, nor are we proud of the statistics which have relegated our people into Third World type of living conditions in such a first-class country as Canada. We do not even want to spend too much time in explaining how we have to live through racism in this country, which once was our very own. Even though it hurts and it is maddening as hell to acknowledge these historical strategies and present day inequities, it is imperative that our people play a major role in the stabilization and restructuring of this country.
Canada and the provinces must invite our first nations to the discussions and negotiations at the first ministers' forums, including direct, bilateral dialogue with Canada on matters of federal-aboriginal significance. Moreover, provincial governments must make serious efforts with a political will to discuss and plan joint strategies in dealing with matters of provincial and aboriginal domain. While long-term constitutional solutions will be required to deal with our outstanding issues, more immediate legislative actions will also be necessary to eradicate those matters that must be resolved now. These action plans must begin immediately.
Finally, these plans must not be left to bureaucrats who may rarely leave their secure offices in Toronto and the Ottawa-Hull area. These issues are far too important for white bureaucrats to screw up again. I am sorry for being blunt, but that is just an expression of how our people are frustrated across this country. I am just a mirror reflecting these frustrations.
Aboriginal issues are about aboriginal people. We have to be involved. We must be involved in dealing with them right from the start, from the definition of the problem to the identification of a resolution process to the actual implementation of action plans to deal with it.
It is fine for Ontario to indicate its support for aboriginal self-government; however, a general support statement without a clearly defined substantive policy and without an adequate financial resourcing base is meaningless and it could give false hope to the first nations of this province. Therefore, Ontario must quickly move to provide more substance and financial resourcing in its support of aboriginal self-government development in this province.
The fifth question: What are the roles of the English and French languages in this Canada? What about the other languages? Why did you not ask that? German, Ukrainian, Japanese, Italian -- what about them? We support the right of any nation of people to retain and maintain their own language and culture. This is a God-given right of any nation. Quebec already has constitutional and legislative protection of its language, along with its English counterpart. No other languages in this country enjoy legal protection, although the mother tongue of one third of the population, as I indicated, is neither English nor French. So what gives Quebec and English Canada the right to continue maintaining that there will be only two official languages in this country? This question must be answered properly if we are to succeed in unifying this country. Therefore, the roles of the English and French languages need to be drastically changed -- notice I said "roles"; I did not say "rules" -- to reflect and accommodate the multicultural fabric of this country. That has to be the agenda, ladies and gentlemen.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Rickard, we are going to give you another couple of minutes. You had asked for a bit. We are running a little bit ahead of schedule, so we will allow you a few more minutes to wrap up.
Mr Rickard: Thank you.
Your sixth question: What is Quebec's future in Canada? Ever since the battle of the Plains of Abraham, the French and the English have had their special and distinct presence in Canada. However, my own people, the aboriginal people, have had a more distinct presence in this country long before the arrival of Cartier, Champlain and others by boat in extremely poor sanitation conditions, as pointed out by my brother Bill Wilson of British Columbia, although his description was more colourful than I am acknowledging it. I do not know if some of you saw the program, but you should watch it. From this context, "What is the aboriginal people's future in Canada?" is also a very legitimate question to ask, along with the question of what Quebec is all about.
What about Ontario's future? The Prairie provinces? The Maritime regions? Northern Canada? We are of the view that Quebec has received enough concessions from Canada with which it can enjoy a legally protected language and culture. Complement this with its own civil law and veto powers, you have a distinct province with more than adequate powers to enjoy economic, social and political stability.
Now, compare the situation of Quebec's special status in Canada with that of our own aboriginal people's plight. You will clearly see how the aboriginal people have our own diametrically opposite distinct status, a distinct status as poverty stricken people with an extremely deplorable quality of life, which in many cases can be equally compared to the worst Third World socioeconomic conditions.
As far as we are concerned, Quebec already enjoys its local autonomy with a good standard of living. Moreover, Quebec will continue to enjoy a sound economic future because it can actively participate in a global marketplace from its present decentralized constitutional power base.
The seventh question which you ask in your discussion paper: What is the place of the west, the north and the Atlantic region? In response to these diverse demographical, economic, social and political characteristics, the regional requirements of Canada must provide equal, decentralized constitutional powers which will enhance and support solid, regionally based governing systems. This sharing of constitutional powers must be equitably divided between Canada and all the provinces and territories and, yes, aboriginal self-government must also be a major part of this process.
We say to you, ladies and gentlemen, by virtue of Quebec's additional powers, which are derived historically, it may not be immediately possible for all other provinces and territories to enjoy the same constitutional privileges now. However, through ongoing constitutional deliberations, it will be possible for all players to achieve maximum and equitable constitutional powers, to govern Canada as a strong, federated country. However, in order to achieve a well-balanced federated governing system in Canada, we need bold leadership visionaries. Take note, bold leadership visionaries: We need a strong central government. We need leadership. There is no leadership in this country -- until the last election, of course, Mr Chairman.
2020
The Vice-Chair: We are impartial on that question. I am going to ask you to wrap up in about two minutes. We gave you extra time five minutes ago and that will bring you up in about two minutes. Okay? Thank you.
Mr Rickard: When we talk about leadership, we are not talking about people like Mulroney and the Conservatives in Ottawa, who are in fact marching to the drum of George Bush. In fact, the way things are going right now, Mulroney will be known as the first vice-president who ever came from Canada. Anyway, that is supposed to be humour.
The biggest challenge, I think, facing us today is to have the ability to listen, mediate, co-operate, compromise and, above all, to act in the best interests of all Canadians, including the aboriginal people. You see, we aboriginal people are not trying to divide the country; we are trying to join federation. We are trying to complete a circle to make this country a strong constitutional circle, complete and strong.
How much time did you say I have, sir?
The Vice-Chair: You have one minute.
Mr Rickard: I cannot even explain that in one minute, what I want to give you.
The Vice-Chair: I realize. Unfortunately, we are constrained to time. We have allowed you another five minutes and we are going to have to ask you to wrap it up in about another minute.
Mr Rickard: That is going to be very difficult.
The Vice-Chair: I realize.
Mr Rickard: The eighth question: What does Ontario want? Ontario is an English version of Quebec. It enjoys the industrial heartland of Canada, a large population, a financial centre, the English language, political and economic influence, including significant constitutional veto powers. Canada has been good for Ontario. Therefore, Ontario has everything it requires to prosper economically and socially. It has the capacity to provide leadership in search of a more unified Canada. It has the multicultural diversity to address and advance the concerns and aspirations of these Canadians whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. Therefore, Ontario has all the fundamental elements to provide economic and political leadership in negotiating with Quebec and other provinces and territories to remain together in a strong federated country.
The Vice-Chair: Okay, I would like to thank you very much. I realize that we are cutting a little bit short at the end, but we have allowed an extra five minutes to go over. We have your brief and it certainly is something that we are going to be reading; not just something we will be looking at, but something we will be looking at very seriously. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you.
Mr Rickard: Before you close the book on me, I want to challenge you on something. You have to hear my recommendations.
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr Rickard: If you do not hear my recommendations, it was pointless for me to even talk to you or even visit you in this nice auditorium. So I want your extraordinary legislative decisions here to give me 10 more minutes to make my recommendations.
The Vice-Chair: One moment. I am going to have to ask the permission of the committee at this point.
Mr Rickard: If you came to my tepee, you would be welcome. I would not give you any time constraints to explain yourself.
The Vice-Chair: I realize that.
Mr Rickard: I ask for the same courtesy.
The Vice-Chair: I realize that, Mr Rickard. The unfortunate thing is that we are tied up by time constraints, but if it is the will of the committee -- I will ask the committee -- we will extend --
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Could we begin on page 19 with the recommendations?
The Vice-Chair: Yes. Can we ask you to go to recommendations. We will give you an additional five minutes and that is all we can allow you, unfortunately.
Mr Rickard: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: You are quite welcome.
Mr Rickard: We have some status quo recommendations, as well as very bold and radical recommendations. If I do not get a chance to explain all of them, you have copies of my proposal.
The Vice-Chair: That is right.
Mr Rickard: I am also going to chase you to Toronto on the 28th of this month. I will complete my presentation there and I will refuse to leave there, because there is a lot of publicity there. It is the centre of the country. Okay.
We recommend that Canada uphold the rights of the provinces, the territories and aboriginal peoples as provided in our Constitution already, because Canada can exclusively maintain and control its own domestic institutions in accordance with a governing role of Canada in the Constitution. I am just going to paraphrase some of these recommendations.
Canada must maintain the perpetuity of the federal union of provinces as implied in the Canadian Constitution, because there are no express or implied provisions for a termination of the federal union contained in the Constitution, the separation of any province or territory from the federal union, as a federal Parliament represents all of the provinces and territories. The audience may not know what I am talking about, but you have to get a copy of what I am saying. There is every semblance of logic to this presentation. Anyway, I am skipping over a number of these things.
Notwithstanding the above, we recommend that any constitutional change in the distribution of powers between the federal government, provinces and territories and aboriginal governments must, as a minimum, have a minimum of a guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians on an equal basis; guarantee of aboriginal and treaty rights, including the constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal self-government; equal participation of aboriginal people in all future first ministers' conferences that directly and indirectly affect them; guarantee the citizens the right to use the language of their choice, as well as the freedom to practise their own ancestral culture; facilitate a working Canadian economic union, including a central bank and one currency for this country; maintain the federal government as solely responsible for the armed forces and defence and no province should be given the right to call in armed forces to settle its own domestic affairs; maintain the federal government as the sole custodian of the Taxation Act -- God help us -- and basic responsibilities for a central immigration regime; maintain the declaratory and disallowance powers of the federal government which are contained in the Constitution; maintain the supremacy of the federal Parliament, and maintain the Supreme Court of Canada as the highest court in the nation.
I have several others and it will take me another 15 minutes to do that, but I will conclude by thanking you for the opportunity to hear me and I hope that once your report is completed, you will give us copies of it --
The Vice-Chair: We will.
Mr Rickard: -- and that we have a chance to further dialogue as to the implementation of these recommendations.
The Vice-Chair: I would like to thank you very much, Mr Rickard.
Mr Rickard: I am glad that you do not ask any questions.
The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately, no. We had a few extra minutes in the bank and unfortunately we are now at the point where we have to go on to our next presenter.
Mr Rickard: I will see you in Toronto on 28 February.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. We will be there.
2030
SHIRLEY O'CONNOR
The Chair: We would like next to call Shirley O'Connor. I am going to have to be tight with my time lines at this time. We will have 10 minutes and we will go on to our next presenter from there.
Mrs O'Connor: [Remarks in native language]
I commend the Premier of Ontario and you, the select committee, on your efforts to make a better Canada. Giving recognition to the fact all citizens play an integral part in shaping this country you call Canada is a positive step. However, there are no written laws on how this can be achieved. That is from the perspective of I see, I hear, I understand. That law is showing by example. It is with that understanding that I am pleased to share my views and I thank you for allowing me to participate.
This presentation will touch on government structures and what they have done, such as first nations' laws, the Constitution, the Indian Act, changing for the better and why this may fail. However, in 10 minutes it is not possible for me to touch on all of those topics that I wish to share with you.
By way of introduction, my presentation is from the perspective of woman, and as a first nation of this land. I want to point out that while I am making an individual presentation, it is by no means singular in the views I am about to share. I come before you with life's experiences and the teachings of my ancestors and how I have come to understand them.
There is a purpose in sharing this with you. My only request is that you keep an open mind and I hope that I can paint for you a picture of why these issues and principles must be recognized. Only time will show me if I was successful in doing this.
Let me begin by telling you who I am. My Christian name is Shirley O'Connor. I am an Ojibway from the Nishnawbe nation, born on this land you call Ontario, in a place now known as Lac Seul. My great-grandfather migrated from the James Bay coast. My great-uncles became employees of Indian agents as translators, assisting in the signing of the treaties, Hudson's Bay clerks, labourers in building the railway. One of them later became chief.
The Indian Act, the residential schools and various religious denominations were governing our lives. Fur trading, timber cutting and commercial fishing became our source of financial survival.
In the 1970s native organizations were established to have a collective voice for the first nations of this country, in which I played a part until last year.
Generally, first nations peoples felt an attachment to Canada despite the injustices that were imposed upon us. Then there was Oka. Suddenly our eyes were opened to the false security we were attaching ourselves to, when an army moves in and starts physically abusing women and children, not to mention an elder who was stoned and later died as a result. No mention was made, no charges were laid. The only thing that was capitalized upon was the shooting death of a white policeman. The physical abuse of first nations was once again downplayed by the media.
And now the war in the Gulf and Canada's participation in it. This certainly gives you a different perspective of what Canada is, or is becoming.
As first nations, we have always clearly understood white supremacy. The premise that whites are superior to coloured must change in order to be able to live in harmony with one another. Our laws tell us there are four colours of people on this earth. Each deserve the right to live in a hassle-free environment, to live in harmony in their own lands.
There are four basic principles of kindness, sharing, honesty and strength. The teachings tell us we must show kindness and respect at all times. We must share our resources, the very basics that we depend upon for our survival. It was those basics that we shared to the first settlers of this land. These resources are our land, trees, clean air, water, fish, animals, and we know what is happening to all of these resources today.
Honesty, truth in life is a fundamental requirement in order to live the good life as in the teaching of the circle of life. This unwritten law has been violated since the coming of the early settlers,
Strength is your spirituality. Applying these basic principles in your everyday living is the very source of one's foundation. The spirit within is proud, stands tall, knows no fear. Persons with this spirituality within are proud of who they are.
I want to talk to you about a system and what it has done to that spirituality. The various religious denominations that operated the residential schools are the single, worst perpetrators to human dignity. Every law that governed the first nations of this land was violated by that one system alone. Children were forcibly removed from families. Violence was introduced into their young lives. Fear was placed in a child's life that was once loving and carefree. Their sexuality was tampered with. Some of them -- their sexuality was violated, some of them long before they reached the age of puberty. The opposite sex was now tainted, to be dirty, yet same-sex relationships were practised on chosen ones. The damage this has caused our people I could never begin to describe to you in the limited time that you have given me to give this presentation.
Equally damaging is the Indian Act. This legislation openly discriminated against women, the very people that produce life, the very people that are caretakers. It was not until women challenged the Supreme Court that the discriminatory section was removed. However, section 12-1(b) in the Indian Act is now replaced with Bill C-31, which is yet another dangerous piece of legislation that is going to further undermine the status of our people. Assimilation is still very much in the minds of government. It is no wonder that women have a far greater mistrust of this government.
A study that was done by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women confirms my last statement of women mistrusting. They point out that, by and large, the decision-makers have been white, middle-aged, middle-class men with no direct experience of the disadvantaged. These groups should put their efforts into the democratic system and trying to change conditions through political means. They ask, "How real is Canada's commitment to equality for women?" I ask the same question with respect to first nations. Only time will tell where the political will stands on these issues.
2040
This is not to disregard the efforts that are being made to right the wrongs that have been made in Canada; they are good beginnings. However, there is much more work to be done by the politicians.
Let me share with you an experience I recently shared with my colleagues. To commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Ontario Human Rights Commission embarked upon an ambitious program which proved to be a most exhilarating experience and provided much food for thought. Initiated and co-ordinated by Toni Silberman, who is responsible for public affairs for the commission, the program involved our commissioners participating in and delivering words of welcome during International Human Rights Week to some 2,300 new Canadians during 24 Court of Canadian Citizenship swearing-in ceremonies which took place throughout the province of Ontario.
We were able to not only offer the new Canadians words of welcome and thanks, but to assure them as well of the rights and responsibilities that accrue to them, having chosen Ontario as their new home. Many of them escaped oppressive regimes and were grateful to find a new opportunity and a new life in Canada. Our presence at these ceremonies underscored the dissimilarity and made it even more meaningful. The new citizens were able to recognize that the objectives and the aims of the Ontario Human Rights Commission correspond with their desire to build a new life in a country where they can use their abilities, free of intolerance.
The program heralded a good start to a lofty idea, and one which we, the commission and I, believe to be essential on a continuing basis for mutual support, benefit and appreciation.
Perhaps some day we could celebrate together if Canada were able to give back to the first nations of this land their pride and dignity. This gesture is long overdue. Politicians need to take a proactive approach on issues of concern that have been raised in the respective constituencies they represent. They are numerous, I am sure. Each concern raised is of high priority from the individual or group it comes from. How they get dealt with depends upon the level of knowledge or commitment when it arrives in the political arena awaiting decision, and that is how the subject matter gets dealt with.
Your discussion paper touched on that Canada may be at the crossroads. I say Canada is truly at the crossroads of change. It is due time first nations are allowed equal partnership in the decision-making process. Do not forget we were here first, so the premise that the white man knows best what is good for this country is no longer. As the original caretakers of this land, we understand the natural resources, the environment, the animal life, and most of all, our people.
By way of concluding, I want to say that I hope all of you understand where I was coming from when I said this. I too reviewed your discussion paper. As I was going through it, I was not even halfway through when I had 15 pages of notes, only notes, about what I was prepared to respond to this committee based on discussions you have raised. I know and I realize the limitations you are putting on us, which is why I made the decision to bring this message to you in the manner I have. When a woman is in labour, you do not tell that child it has 10 minutes to come into this world. No doctor or no expectant mother can do that.
The teachings I talked about are from the basis of respect. The Constitution as it is designed, the Indian Act as it is designed, the policies that govern Canada, the policies that govern the provinces -- nowhere in those policies does it show me respect for people, respect for land, respect for animal life, respect for water and air, which is why I touched on the topic of the natural resources in Canada and what is happening to them. I only hope I have sent my message home, and when I talk about first nations as equal partners in the decision-making process.
The purpose of highlighting some of the things I did and in the manner I have presented is purely because I too have been around in the political arena, in the native organizations I talked about in the 1970s. I know and I see what the policies are doing, and the reason I presented it this way is that I wanted to share this with you. I guess the last speaker who was abruptly cut off is already an example that you have not heard my message. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair: I would like to thank you. I want to say that we appreciate the presentation you made. It is quite evident to this committee and to myself that it came from the heart, and it is obvious you lived the experience and are able to share that with us. The unfortunate reality is that we are confined to time lines, because the committee has only a certain amount of time to hear many speakers. I allowed the previous speaker to go an extra 10 minutes, as well as yourself another five or seven minutes in trying to accommodate that. I would like to thank you.
Mrs O'Connor: Thank you.
2050
MUSHKEGOWUK COUNCIL
The Vice-Chair: I would like to call up the next speaker, Alex Spence from the Mushkegowuk Council. Just so we understand each other from the beginning: 20 minutes.
Mr Spence: I bring you greetings from our chiefs of the Mushkegowuk first nations, the communities of Weenusk, Attawapiskat, Kashechewan, Fort Albany, Moose Factory, Mocreebec and New Post. I would feel more comfortable speaking to you in my own language, but as the committee is not equipped to accommodate translation in our language, I will address you in English.
When the Premier visited James Bay, he learned first hand the burden our citizens face in their dealings with government officials who do not respect their language, but you are the new government so we prefer to start on a positive note.
I feel very comfortable in this building and also within the city of Timmins. Since 1986, the Timmins Board of Education has made a determined effort to work closely with us to meet the needs of our high school students. Today, we employ a counselling unit with a staff of five right in this building, and as of last month a Cree language teacher was hired to teach a full-credit course within the Cree language.
It makes me think back to my high school days in Kapuskasing. My brothers and I lived with a family whose first language was French. Since we were learning English, they agreed to a fair compromise. At mealtimes, they would speak English to help us learn the dominant language. When their friends came to visit they spoke their first language, and when our friends came to visit we spoke with them in our first language. Both situations show how reasonable people can live together in harmony and balance.
What is our place in Ontario and the Confederation? What are our social and economic aspirations, and how can Confederation help us make this happen?
As I stand here, I think of what it would be like to sit on a chair with only two legs. You would be very uncomfortable. You would have quite a balancing act, to the point where you would probably fall over. For us, Confederation is a chair with two legs. One is the relationship between the French and English, the so-called -- but not by us -- founding races. The relationship is the sharing of powers between the federal government and the province. The oldest relationship of all, between aboriginal people and the newcomers, was thrown away. You keep having summers of protest and confrontations or people like Elijah Harper reminding you that something is wrong. Can you see that the leg is missing?
We were never invited to be a part of Confederation. After 1867, three commissioners came to James Bay. It was 1905, and they brought a piece of paper called Treaty 9. For more than two centuries we have celebrated peace and friendship with your ancestors using our protocol of gift-giving, feasts, speeches and your symbol of the Union Jack. When the ritual was over, the commissioners went away with our grandfathers' signatures on the paper. At Fort Albany, our elders tell us that the commissioners held the pen and told our grandfathers to touch the top of the pencil. It was nothing new for them, because the Hudson's Bay Co always wrote something in a book when giving them food or supplies. They could not read, and they had no legal means of justifying what they are doing, simply because at that time we did not have any lawyers.
Legal experts have told our generations what was going on. In the government's eyes, our ancestors had a legal burden, known as aboriginal title, which prevented them from asserting ownership and control over the land -- nation-building to you. Of course, you cannot take away someone's rights without their informed consent. For us to surrender our land would be like taking away the topsoil: nothing would grow and we would not be able to survive as we once did, in harmony, for thousands of years.
We have declared nine inherent rights as Mushkegowuk first nations: We have the right to maintain our spiritual values, our language, our traditions and our culture; the right to self-government; we have the right to a decent standard of living; we have the right to be the guardian of the land and the resources; we have the right to live on the land and we have the right to develop and harvest the land; we have the right to share the wealth of the land; we have the right to respect the spirit and intent of the treaties and agreements which affect our people; and, finally we have the right to recognize our own laws over the laws of the crown.
Ontario was a witness to Treaty 9. Ontario benefited and grew and flourished as a result of acquiring our land and our resources. One of the treaty commissioners, Duncan Campbell Scott, later admitted that the treaty was not properly explained. He admitted that an oral promise was made that our grandfathers' method of making a living would never be interfered with. What is Ontario doing to help our harvesters, reeling from the effects of changes in the fur industry? Another of the unwritten promises was that we would receive farming implements, livestock and sawmills in the name of economic development in today's technology.
Historians who study the treaty-making process can only conclude that when our grandfathers signed the treaty, or had their names forged, they were agreeing to oral promises, not the written text. Not only were we excluded from Confederation, we were excluded through deception.
Ontario's new government has taken one brave step in recognizing that self-government is an inherent right. The next step is to recognize that our treaty forms the basis of our relationship with Confederation and that the written version of our treaty is invalid. The leg was chopped off in 1905 and again in 1930 when the commissioners went to Winisk.
We have developed a unique self-government process which we call "partners in change." It involves all residents in our region of the province, native and non-native, as well as the federal and provincial governments, in looking at our common needs. In the health field we are planning a unified health care system. Treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized in this process. As Premier Rae is aware, chronic care co-payments are a violation of treaty promises. In the education field, we are working with the school boards, first nations and educational authorities to achieve the highest standard of education service while respecting local control.
Your government has given some support to these initiatives, but more is needed to be done so we can solve our own social and economic problems in our own ways.
As you look at the map of Ontario and wonder all about the various aboriginal political organizations, do not be fooled into thinking that we are just another tribal council. We do not use that word. That is Indian Affairs terminology.
2100
In this province, there are three main Indian groups: the Iroquois, the Ojibwa in the south and the northwest, and the Mushkegowuk or Cree in the northeast. The Mushkegowuk first nations wish to sign a formal self-government accord with your government, recognizing our uniqueness and our desire to address a broad range of issues directly with your government. With real commitment from your government, we can address social and economic issues as partners and begin to reverse the imbalance created in 1905. We can even begin to think about becoming part of Confederation.
Thank you for listening.
Mr Winninger: First, I agree it is unfortunate that we cannot translate these proceedings in each and every case into Cree or Ojibway or Oji-Cree, but we are making efforts, as we did at Sioux Lookout, to do that. Perhaps in the future, such as Toronto, we can translate our proceedings into your native tongue.
One important lesson I have learned from this tour is how much we have to learn from the first nations about such values as kindness, sharing, honesty and strength, as the previous speaker mentioned. There is a lot that has to be done to redress the social and economic injustices of the past, and this government, as you know, has committed itself to negotiating self-government agreements, settling land claims and improving the quality of life for both status and non-status natives.
These are more than mere empty words. I was present when native justices were sworn in in Attawapiskat and negotiating self-government in Gore Bay and this sort of thing. A lot has been done in a very short time, but I agree with you that there is a lot more that has to be done so you will be able to assert your pride and dignity and have a sense of equal partnership, to use the words of another speaker.
It would seem that the negotiation of self-government agreements across Ontario will certainly continue apace. I know there are ongoing negotiations. Certainly the terms and conditions of the Nishnawbe-Aski nation agreement are being looked into by Bob Rosehart, and similar self-government arrangements across the province are being carried forward. I trust that you will bear with us as we deal with these complex problems and hopefully we can come to terms with some of these injustices you have so eloquently stated today.
Mr Beer: I want to follow up on the point David was talking to you about, Alex. It seems to me that one of the things we have found over the years as we have tried to move towards self-government is that it can be a more complicated road than we would like it to be. In the past while, we have tried looking at, especially with the province, areas where native organizations such as your own can in effect take over the self-management, self-administration, whatever term you want to apply, for a variety of programs; I am thinking of the ones you do in terms of the broad social service area along the whole coast of James Bay.
Do you see that perhaps the way to go in working with the province in particular would be to try to expand those kinds of agreements, whether in the social service area, health, policing, what have you, whereby in effect, in a kind of building block way, you really take over the management of a wide variety of programs that directly affect the native people within your area, and in that sense I suppose almost create a de facto self-governing situation? Because it seems we always get caught up in what the federal government is prepared to do, yet there are some steps that I think the province and native organizations have been able to take over the last decade which have been very positive in terms of the results for native self-government. I just wondered if you have thoughts on that.
Mr Spence: I guess I can only give an example at this time to tell the problems that we have to encounter, for instance, to address at this time to the Ontario government when it comes to land. I just want to give you an example.
In terms of our treaties, Ontario was part of the process. The agreement that the federal government and the Ontario government had was, the only land rights that we have is in our reserves, so as a guardian of the surrounding lands, it became the sole authority of the Ontario government. So when it comes to economic development and various companies are issued, for instance, working permits or land use permits, the fact is that when you issue these work permits in our aboriginal lands, we automatically lose our entitlement to be living off the land, because of the way the policies are being set within the Ontario government. That is one of the things that has to be addressed before we get justice, and I am sure you are aware of it. One of the past ministers said he had to sit down with our people in the James Bay area. I am sure it was brought up in your meetings.
Ms Churley: I just want to thank you for your positive presentation. I am glad to see that you feel that there is some hope, and this is as a fairly new person to government. I am learning a lot. We had many native people come and talk to us in the northwest, and every time somebody speaks, I learn something more. I wish we did have more time to hear your presentations. I am very encouraged when I hear messages of hope because I understand that you have been saying the same things to a lot of politicians for a long time and not really getting anywhere.
I would just like to ask you, not only with the new government in Ontario, because certainly the federal government has a large say in these matters, if you are feeling more hope in general because of the various things that have happened lately, Oka and what happened with Meech and the large aboriginal voice in that. Are you feeling a trend in the general population in terms of people being more sympathetic and more understanding and more respectful now?
Mr Spence: Certainly there is a general awareness now in the public about the way the native people feel, and we still have got a lot to learn from our own native people, from us. When you talk about Confederation, for instance, for the last thousand years, even within what we call Canada today or North America, it has been proved that at one time there is 152 different native languages in Canada, and there was never a question if you are going to be able to speak in only two languages.
It is just the fact that we were given a chance to speak our language, because once you use your languages, it comes from the heart and it is really hard to bring your spirit down when it comes from the heart, especially using your own language. So I think that is one of the messages we would like to give to the select committee to be considered, whatever your definition of Confederation might be, when you start talking about this process.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Spence.
Mr Spence: Meegwetch.
The Vice-Chair: Meegwetch.
We have a number of names that were brought before our committee. As you are aware, there was a table in the back where people were able to come up and ask to speak to our committee, basically on a first come, first served basis. I have got a couple of names I am going to go through. Some of them, I think, may not be here but we will go through it anyway. We tell these people that we are going to give them five minutes. We are going to have to be fairly strict on that. The television crews here have to take down all of the equipment and be in Sudbury for early tomorrow morning, so we will have to keep you down to five minutes.
2110
KEN METSALA
The Vice-Chair: The first person we will call is Ken Metsala. How are you doing?
Mr Metsala: Thanks very much, Gilles. First off, I would like to say it is so refreshing to see people in government coming to hear what people have to say. I am really overwhelmed and have been very humbled by the wonderful speeches that the people have made here tonight. Their summations have been just wonderful. I have really had my eyes opened on a lot of issues myself.
I just heard about this citizens' forum being in Timmins by reading the Globe and Mail yesterday, and coming home from work, I decided I would like to air a few things that I think are very important to this young government. I have to make them short, so I will try the best I can with what I have got here. I did not stick to the exact format that you people had, because I did not have one. Anyway, I am going to talk about what I think is very important just in a quick way here.
We have talked about human issues here tonight, and one of the biggest human issues that we have not talked about, and I think that the people of this province would like to talk about, is what is happening with the job losses in Ontario. I really believe that these job losses have been the instrument of Ottawa through poor financial planning, running high deficits and meanwhile telling all of Canada that we have to cut back in our own personal lives to basically keep inflation down. But when are the economists of the government of Canada going to listen to the fact that the government, by spending so many huge amounts of dollars over what it is taking in, is the sole cause of inflation. It is not the people who are trying to scratch out a living for their children and put them through school.
All the people I know in the last couple of years have found that their incomes are being stretched to the limit. They are going backwards. We are not going ahead any more, and I think the number one overwhelming reason why we are going backwards with attaining business in Ontario is our high level of taxation, federally and provincially. The rich are not paying any more.
We have to have a more equitable taxation system where everyone pays a flat tax, then no-one can complain. We will all carry our fair share. That is the only way we are going to get over this. The GST is driving businesses out of southern Ontario in droves. You can hear about trade missions all the time in Toronto, people coming up from Alabama, Georgia, and saying, "Sign up, come on down," and businesses are going. We have to stop it.
I think the only way we are going to make Ontario competitive by keeping industries here is by providing incentives for people to stay in school: a bigger emphasis on maths and sciences instead of soft arts. We cannot eat culture for breakfast. We have to have good, hard industry and smart kids coming into the workforce to carry this province, to finance these wonderful ideas that people have.
If we do not have the money, we can talk about this all night long; we are not going anywhere. We have to make some sobering decisions in regards to trying to streamline our education system, bring it under one roof, not three or four different school boards where you have English Catholic, French Catholic, English public and French public schools. We have to have one. Why can we not have one school system where if kids want to take English and French, they can take English and French, or if they want to take religion, they can take religion? We are getting spread out too far and offering too many things to too many people and we all have to pay for it.
One thing about, shall Quebec or shall it not? As far as I am concerned, and I have polled the people at work so I am not just speaking for myself, for years Ontario has made a definite effort to accommodate the demands of Quebec. We instituted bilingual programs through the province to show we care. An example is French immersion programs. Where are Quebec's English immersion programs to show they care? If we cannot speak, communicate with each other, how can we ever get along?
It is okay for Quebec to turn around and say, "We are going to preserve our language." Okay, fine, work at it at home, work at it in the schools, but teach your children another language, English, because people like to travel around and see what the rest of Canada is about. If they do not understand what we are talking about, how are we ever going to get along as a country?
Yet when Sault Ste Marie makes one thing about, "We are getting too complicated with too many bilingualism programs. We'll go unilingual," Brian Mulroney says this is heresy, it is terrible. What happened when Quebec came out with their French-only signs? What happened when they started cutting back on English funding for schools? Nothing. He said it is unfortunate. It is a pile of crap.
Anyway, surveys indicate some Quebeckers think Canada is important, but high-profile Quebeckers never support Canada. All we ever hear from Bourassa, Parizeau and Bouchard is, "Do this, give us this, make this change or we will leave." They sound like spoiled children. It is high time we give them a taste of tough love.
We have given them much in the last 20 years by providing Quebec with most-favoured status. The federal government has gone out of its way to give them extra government contracts to stimulate their employment situations, and I think it has been more than generous.
As far as I am concerned, Quebec must be allowed to go its own way. We can still remain friends, though, but they must be dealt the cards of reality up front. We cannot allow Brian Mulroney to negotiate an amicable settlement, as he is a Quebecker himself. As you can see from the way he has been acting for the last three or four years, his interests lie in that area.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Metsala, there are a couple of questions from the committee. You can either use the rest of your time to sum up or go with questions.
Mr Metsala: Go ahead, shoot. I would love to answer questions.
Mr Harnick: You indicated that you were upset about governments spending more than they took in and I think you said that governments are offering too many things to too many people.
Mr Metsala: That is right.
Mr Harnick: What I want to ask you is, where does a government cut back? What programs are eligible, in your mind, to cut back on? I also want to know what you think about the principle of universal programs.
Mr Metsala: Universal programs; eg, medicare?
Mr Harnick: Those kinds of programs. That is right.
Mr Metsala: Okay, universal programs. I believe that the people of Ontario are entitled to good proper medical care. I also believe that everyone should have sound access to education. But our medical care system is being overtaxed. I believe that we have to look at alternative medicine in this country, like starting to stress things, how to cut down. We do not need more doctors.
We need counsellors to go to schools to tell children how to eat properly. How many children are not eating properly? The nutritional content of the average child's lunch in this province is terrible. It is high fat, high sugar. You can ask any nutritionist this. Kids do not eat well and they have to learn this at home. Lifestyles keep people from getting sick -- good lifestyles.
We can cut back on our health care. We do not have to spend any more money. We have to educate the public that you just do not go to the doctor when you are sick. Health is something that you have to practise every day.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Metsala.
Next on the agenda is Liliane Laforest. Is Liliane in the audience? The other one is from the Kapuskasing Labour Council, Enzo Altobelli. Those are the names we have.
We have come to the conclusion of our hearings in Timmins. We would like to thank the community of Timmins for having us in the community today and allowing us to have the opportunity to listen to what the people of Timmins have to say.
On behalf of all the committee, thank you for having us. We will resume our sitting tomorrow morning in Sudbury from city hall at the Civic Centre at 9:30 in the morning.
The committee adjourned at 2118.