Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

[Report continued from volume A]

1750

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT / ENTENTE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Continuing the debate on government notice of motion number 16.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to rise in the House to discuss the referendum, the Constitution and to join with the Premier in so many of his remarks, as I think he has very effectively raised a number of the issues that are out there that people are asking us as we go about our task of meeting with people in their homes, in service clubs, in schools, wherever people are gathering to discuss this particular topic.

I'd like to comment on a number of the same issues as I go through my remarks. But I also want to perhaps offer a few somewhat more personal observations as one who found himself in the mid-1960s studying at Laval University in Quebec City and, without planning it or thinking about it, has found himself, one way or another, for virtually all of his adult life doing something that ended up relating to the Constitution, to language policy, to this whole question of who we are as Canadians and how we want to express that in our Constitution.

If I can be a little academic about this, I'd like to use as the thesis for the comments that I want to make an expression that Premier Ghiz made. I think he's made it a number of times, but those of us in the Liberal caucus had the pleasure of listening to him a few weeks ago at our caucus retreat. He came to Collingwood, where we were, and said, "I'm going to pretend that I'm in Charlottetown or Summerside and I'm talking to a service club, a group at home, because I want to talk to you about the Charlottetown accord the way I would were I back on the Island."

He then proceeded, during the course of an hour or an hour and a half, to give what I think was not only a vintage Maritime islander speech on the stump but to make some very important points and to make them very effectively about why we can be proud of this agreement and go forward and support it, not, as someone said, holding one's nose but really to underline important points of principle that are in this agreement that I think will make an even better country in which to live.

What Premier Ghiz said, and this is something we want to reflect on as we go through our discussion, was simply this: that we must not let the prophets of perfection become the enemy of the good.

So what we're after here in this constitutional accord is coming to terms with what is good for this country. As the Premier has said and as others have said, if each of us seeks the perfect constitutional document we will never, ever get there.

One had only to sit on our own select committee on the Constitution, as a number of us did, when we travelled the province to listen to what it was that individual Ontarians, individual Canadians, felt about their country and wanted to see in any changed Constitution. Of course, we had a myriad of points of view. But at the heart of all of those points of view was a very simple statement, really saying to us as the politicians, as the elected officials, "If we ask you to do anything, it is to make sure that you use your common sense and your good judgement to come forward with a document that will represent us as Canadians and in which we will be able to see ourselves but where we know as well that it will have to be a good, solid compromise representing all the different regions of this country, the cultural and linguistic differences and so on." I believe that is what we have done in this document.

The other point we need to understand as we try to come to grips with the meaning of the Charlottetown accord is to ask ourselves: What's a Constitution all about? What ought a Constitution to represent? Must a Constitution include within it every single issue and problem? Must it effectively respond to every single issue and problem?

To ask that question and to reflect upon it is to say, no, it is a very important part of who we are and how we see ourselves but it is only a part, and we need to recognize that questions around the role of political leadership, of political will, in terms of substantive issues that we will deal with, whether in this House or in the House of Commons or anywhere else, are important too.

Let's remind ourselves that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we are proud of as part of our Constitution -- I think quite rightly so -- did not exist before 1982 and yet we still had a body of law, a body of precedent, that put forward and effectively protected, in many respects, rights and freedoms. Just because we have that charter doesn't mean that there are no cases of racial discrimination or that men and women, in effect, are equal everywhere and in every case. Constitutions can't do that by themselves, but the importance of a Constitution, a good Constitution, is that it acts as a guide, a signpost, a place where we can see a direction. I think what we have tried to do with the Charlottetown accord is bring that direction, the direction that Canadians want to see at the end of the 20th century, into that constitutional document.

How did we get here? Where did the journey begin that led to Charlottetown? I think that sometimes in the criticism brought to bear on the accord we hear that phrase, again, that this is something that the premiers dreamed up, that a very small group of people have brought forward this accord. I think that has to be answered, and perhaps one who is not a Premier can answer that somewhat more directly.

I would go back and say to people, in looking at our evolution constitutionally -- as was said, we could go back into the 18th century, but I think in a real sense we go back to John Robarts and the Confederation of Tomorrow conference in 1967. It's very interesting to go back and look at some of the discussion that took place at that time and some of the background papers that were prepared prior to that conference, because many of the issues that we have tried to deal with and, I believe, have fairly and reasonably dealt with in the Charlottetown accord were on the table at that meeting, where the purpose of Premier Robarts, in convening that session, was to bring together the premiers of the other provinces and to begin a dialogue.

The focus, and I think rightly so, at the time was to really begin that dialogue with the province of Quebec, which was going through profound change. But anyone who either sat and listened to the discussion or was in the room at times watching the interaction among the leaders of the different provinces could also see a lot of the other issues that have since emerged: that feeling from the west, for example, of a certain alienation, a certain lack of involvement in the direction our country has taken and in our national institutions.

We began that voyage in 1967. It continued through the 1968-71 constitutional discussions which ended in Victoria and did not have a successful resolution but where an awful lot of very good and important work was done, again on many of the issues we face now. We continued through the 1970s. The Quebec referendum then became a critical point in this discussion, because during the debate on that referendum, as members will recall, the government of Quebec, the separatist PQ government of the day, was asking for the authority to go forward and negotiate a form of sovereignty-association. The people of Quebec said no. The then Prime Minister, Mr Trudeau, said:

"I want to take that no in a positive way and lead that to bring us together, to bring about a resolution of specific constitutional problems faced by the province of Quebec. But as well, I want to patriate the Constitution, and I believe it is important for us to express our support of fundamental rights and freedoms by bringing forward the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

That was the next phase, and in April 1982 the Queen came to Canada and signed that document, and I think we were all rightly proud. But there was one thing missing, and that was the signature of the government of Quebec. I know many learned scholars have said that didn't affect the application of the charter and the Constitution Act of 1982 to Quebec and to the whole country, but I think everybody recognized very clearly that we wanted to have the willing inclusion of Quebec in our fundamental constitutional document and that until that happened there was something missing, something we were going to have to deal with as a people, as a country.

1800

Following those discussions, something that occurred I think has often been overlooked in the discussion. Between 1983 and 1987, first ministers tried to deal with some of the fundamental issues affecting the aboriginal communities, so there were four or five federal-provincial constitutional conferences that tried to deal with the question of aboriginal rights and aboriginal government. At the end of that period, not long before the discussions on Meech Lake started, those discussions failed. We then moved into the Meech Lake negotiations, and we know what happened there.

At that time I think if there was a lesson we all learned, it was what people were saying in trying to develop a Constitution for today. "We're going to have to deal with all of the issues that Canadians are concerned about," whatever one thought about the aboriginal discussions between 1983 and 1987, whatever one thought about the Meech Lake accord.

We found this in the select committee on Confederation that we had in Ontario, which looked at the Meech Lake accord. Many different groups were coming and saying, "That is not good enough"; not that they were necessarily opposed to some of the provisions in Meech with respect to Quebec, but simply that they wanted to see more. They wanted what we came to call a Canada round.

When we reconstituted our own select committee after the 1990 election, and when other provinces did similar things, we started a new process that was going to have to include all these issues and all these concerns. We really have had -- and I think this is the other point that needs to be stressed -- an amazingly open and inclusive process which has led to this agreement.

Virtually every province has had some kind of select committee or special committee that has gone around both seeking the views of citizens and developing and preparing a report. The federal government had several parliamentary commissions that went and looked at the specific issue of the Constitution.

We had the Spicer commission that went around the country listening to the views of Canadians and we had a series of six meetings, a kind of mini-constituent assembly, if you like, that took place in six major centres in Canada last February and March. Out of that, then, came the multilateral process that Joe Clark, the Constitutional Affairs minister of the federal government, chaired.

I stress all that preamble in terms of what has happened, and particularly the roles of all of the different committees. As one who had the pleasure, together with my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, of sitting in on a number of the meetings during that process, I was struck by how often the leaders who were speaking around the table, including the Premier of this province, would refer to the documents that had come from that public participatory process and say, "Well, look, these are the kinds of values that we see coming from Ontario or from Manitoba or from Alberta." Those views were very much at the table; they were very much on the table.

I think in some respects, as I watched the premiers, the senior ministers, the leaders of the four aboriginal groups and the leaders of the territories wrestling with these issues during March and April and May and June and July and August, I really wish that somehow we had been able, in effect, to televise that, to have that open, because I think people came to the table seeking the good and seeking a constructive compromise.

I don't think I would say there was anyone at the table during those negotiations who was not trying to come forward with something that was going to move our country ahead. What people were focused on was doing what was right for Canada. Certainly, everyone came with certain particular positions, views and things they felt would be important within that process, and that is reasonable. That is, after all, what we are about. We are a federation.

People forget that we're a country today, in fact the largest country in the world with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, with a relatively small population. There are very strong regional disparities, regional differences, and one obviously major cultural and linguistic difference in terms of Quebec and the question of how we are going to work together with the aboriginal peoples. These have all been on the table; they have been there for a generation.

Certainly when I look back, since 1967, what I see with this agreement is something that gathers in a whole series of threads and strands and says: "This is good for our country. With this we can go forward. With this we will be able to focus on those fundamental issues that are of such direct concern to Canadians and Ontarians today around jobs, a first-rate health care system, a first-rate education system and so on."

There is a fundamental link in working out how we are going to solve our constitutional questions and getting on with those other tasks. I think, as we look at this document, this agreement, we need to ask the question, "Is this good for Canada?" Not, "Is it perfect?" But, "Is it good for Canada?" I think the answer is clearly that it is.

What, then, are some of those key issues addressed in this document? I'd like to begin by looking at this question of collective and individual rights because particularly -- and I don't know if this is the experience of other members, but as I've gone out and talked to students and tried to make a point of talking to the OAC level, what in my day was called grade 13 but now we have the OAC level -- what's fascinating when you go into those classrooms is that, by and large, 90% to almost 100% of those students are going to be voting for the first time. They take this vote very seriously. I think some of the most vigorous debate and questioning I have had on this accord has been with students at the OAC level.

One of the issues that I've found is very troubling to them has been the interplay of collective and individual rights. It's interesting to take the Canada clause and to go through it with them clause by clause, to note the fundamental characteristics that we believe are important and reflect us as Canadians and to come to the one that speaks specifically to this question of individual and collective rights, where we say that Canadians are committed to a respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms of all people. You get that question, "But look, me, I'm equal to everybody."

Why do we talk about language rights, the official language minorities? Why do we talk about aboriginal peoples? Why do we talk about certain group or collective rights? That is part of who we are. We recognize that the inclusion of both, the ability to protect both individual and collective rights, is important in defining who we are as Canadians.

One can do that. One can recognize the inherent right of the aboriginal peoples to self-government; one can recognize Quebec as a distinct society without in any way, shape or form limiting my individual rights or anyone else's. Those can go, and indeed do go, hand in hand.

I think that's something we want to note, what the words are in this agreement, and at times go back as well to the charter itself to make sure that people know what section 15 says and what section 28 says. For the record, I want to read this in because one of the things I've found effective is to say, "Do you know what is in section 15 with respect to equality rights?"

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" -- one of the strongest statements of equality rights anywhere in the world. Section 28 says, "Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."

1810

Our Constitution as a whole -- the amendments being brought from Charlottetown; the statements made in the Canada clause -- in my view supplement, strengthen and add to the weight that we have in the charter that protects both collective and individual rights. I think that is something we can be proud of and where the Charlottetown accord is a good agreement for all of us as Canadians.

A second question that often comes up is, what are we doing to the federal role? What are we doing to the federal government's responsibilities? Aren't we just turning all kinds of powers over to the provinces and in effect destroying our country? I think the answer to that very clearly is no, and the way to deal with it is to really take people through the accord.

Again, one of the real problems in this whole debate has been trying to sit down with as many people as possible, look at the words in the agreement and say, "Let's take those words, not what perhaps some third party is saying they mean, but let's look at them in detail." When we look at the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, by and large what we see is a reflection of the way our federal system is operating today. When somebody says, "Would the federal government be able to bring in a national child care program?" the answer is that this agreement in no way limits its ability to do that.

Probably the single biggest problem the federal government faces right now -- that would be any federal government, no matter the political party in power in Ottawa -- is the problem around the debt. That is going to limit the ability of the federal government for many years to come in bringing forward any new, major piece of social or health legislation. But what this document says is simply that where that is going to happen, there will be negotiations as there would have to be at the present time, but those negotiations will lead to an agreement that will be protected.

Members will recall changes made by the federal government to the Canada assistance plan when, to many Canadians, that plan was seen as a negotiated agreement that one side should not be able unilaterally to change. I think what we are trying to reflect in here is that where there is a federal-provincial agreement around manpower training, immigration or any of the other areas that are pinpointed, they will be negotiated, the legislatures and the Parliament will be part of those discussions and part of the ratification of that process, and at the end of the day we'll have an agreement that will be constitutionally protected.

In many cases we're simply saying that the level of government which is closest to the people -- in this case, the provincial level -- for many of these things is the best place to have that power or authority. When we come to a question such as manpower training and we look at our educational system and we look at a whole series of other things we do in this province, it seems to me it is right and proper for Ontario to want to bring those training programs within that total educational and training package, and be able to have one effective system and not have different levels of government tripping over each other. So there's a practical nature to what we have put forward in the Charlottetown accord in terms of how the federal system would work.

The third point is of course around the aboriginal peoples. What does this mean? What does the inherent right of the aboriginal peoples to self-government mean and why isn't it defined with every t crossed and every i dotted in this agreement? There's no question, I think, that if there's one place where there is a leap of faith it is on this issue, but I think rightly so.

For far too long we have had ongoing discussions with the native peoples of this country. For far too long we have recognized that in so many of the native communities the situation, the quality of life that they face is nothing short of scandalous and that as part of coming to a resolution, to really be able to deal with and improve the quality of life of our aboriginal peoples, they must have a far greater say in what is going to happen to them.

In the first instance, we're very simply saying that before the first Europeans came to this continent there existed a whole variety of aboriginal communities that had their own form of government. We're recognizing that. What we're saying now is that based on that we're going to start a process that will define for the end of the 20th century, the beginning of the 21st century, how aboriginal governments will function.

There is a process that will involve the federal government, the provincial governments and the aboriginal peoples. There will not be one simple form of aboriginal self-government, because they vary in terms of size, land base, a whole series of factors which are going to make those negotiations different, one from the other. I suspect that in the lifetime of everybody in this chamber, we'll not see that process completed. Not that there are going to be thousands and thousands of meetings, but simply that there will be certain aboriginal communities that will say, "We're not ready to move to that point." Others will be.

Clearly, we can see with the Inuit in the Northwest Territories a land base and a shared experience where they will be able to move to self-government very quickly. Indeed, the government of the Northwest Territories today, the territorial government, really operates very much on the basis of an Inuit approach to problem-solving. They don't have political parties. They deal in a more consensual way with those issues.

In each province, with each major aboriginal group, we will come to a definition of self-government that will be different, but it is going to reflect those negotiations and it will therefore, I believe, work effectively because aboriginal peoples will then increasingly be in charge of where they are going and of their own lives.

Within this Legislature, over the course of the last 10 or 20 years, different governments, all three parties have worked with aboriginal communities in turning over responsibility for a number of what we call provincial and local government responsibilities. I think in virtually every case we did that -- certainly when I think of my own experiences as Minister of Community and Social Services -- we were able to see more effective programs for aboriginal peoples where they were directly involved in defining and implementing those programs. I see this clause around the aboriginal people as being very positive and something that we are going to be able to work out collectively together.

The Senate is an issue which for Ontario has never been on the front burner. I can recall when people would come out of the west, particularly from Alberta, and come down to talk to us about changes to the Senate. What kinds of things did we want to see? How could we make the Senate more effective? I suppose for most Ontarians what we would really say is: "We're not sure that we need a Senate. Maybe we'd just as soon abolish it."

But again, I think as Canadians, being part of the federation, what we've had to do is say, "Look, there are some legitimate concerns that come from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, where they see this issue as being very important." Remember that in the discussions in Charlottetown in 1864 and leading up to the British North America Act in 1867 one of the important elements was that the provinces wanted the Senate to be more of a regional body, a body which would reflect, at the heart of the federation, regional concerns.

I think that's what is still seen, and when you look at the proposals that were worked out for the Senate, we see the equality -- six senators for each province -- as working to achieve that objective and we see the election of senators as being important to make it a more democratic body. While the province of Quebec initially has said that it will select its senators through the National Assembly, my own view is that over time there will be a demand within Quebec that they be elected on the same basis as in the other provinces. Remember the experience of the United States with its own Senate? At first, many of them simply appointed different rules in different states, but over time what evolved was a common system such as they have today.

1820

What about its effectiveness? Clearly, it's not a triple E Senate in the purest form. It's a two-point-something, but there are some real responsibility and real power that now lie with the Senate. This new body, if you like, that will be a joint sitting of the House of Commons and the Senate, will meet when the Senate turns down a bill that comes from the House of Commons. In most cases, it's true, the House of Commons vote will prevail. They will have the numbers.

But particularly in terms of minority government there will be a view reflected through the Senate that says, "Maybe we should just hold and pause," and that term of being a sober second body that's going to look at some of these issues, I think, will take on new meaning. I think it will be very interesting to see how the role of an elected senator will evolve over time. I suspect that the senators will be able to exercise not so much a final determining role on policy but they will develop an ability to provide a certain moral leadership, because they will be elected and they'll have the strength of that election. They will not be able to serve in the cabinet, so they won't have those pressures on them, and they will be able to speak both for their regional concern and also for a sense of Canada. I think that can be a very positive development.

But if there's something in this agreement that I think we can be particularly proud of and which, I think since Meech Lake in particular, has been something that people across the country have asked for, it is the Canada clause. I referred to that earlier in my remarks in talking about the question of collective rights and individual rights. I think it's important to pause and look at what we have included within this Canada clause, this clause which sets out the fundamental characteristics of our country and is a clause that is interpretative. It doesn't grant rights, but it reflects back who it is we think we are. I want to put those on the record because I think people want to see that they're there and think about them, and when you do that, I think you can see much that is positive in this accord, in the Canada clause.

First: "Canada is a democracy committed to a parliamentary and federal system of government and to the rule of law." Surely, an important statement that we want to make about the nature of our democratic and federal system.

Second: "The aboriginal peoples of Canada, being the first peoples to govern this land, have the right to promote their languages, cultures and traditions and to ensure the integrity of their societies, and their governments constitute one of three orders of government in Canada." Again, the simple recognition that the aboriginal peoples have a specific role to play in this country and that they have the right to self-government.

The third point, and one which causes some people concern but which I think is a fair reflection of where we are today, relates to Quebec. "Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition." That, I would argue, is simply a statement of the fact of the Canadian federation today.

If you were to take decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada over the last 10, 15, 20 or 25 years on a whole series of matters, you would see, defined within their decisions, a definition of Quebec that flows very much from what is in the Canada clause, that relates it to being a French-speaking majority, that relates to its unique culture and relates to its civil law tradition.

Again, in my view, there is nothing there that threatens any individual Canadian. There's nothing there that threatens the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and indeed, as was often noted during the Meech Lake discussions, the province of Quebec has a very strong human rights code that is every bit as good as the one that we have in this province, and the one that we have in this province is a very good code indeed.

The next fundamental characteristic: "Canadians and their governments are committed to the vitality and development of official language minority communities throughout Canada."

One of the things I found very interesting in the discussion around the Charlottetown accord was that the issue about the protection of official language minorities did not receive a great deal of discussion, and it was fascinating in terms of why not. It was simply that people accept it.

If you go through all the different provincial committees, the federal bodies, the Spicer commission and everything that went on over the course of the last two years, there was, I believe, expressed by the vast majority of Canadians the view that we need to have a generosity of spirit in recognizing, protecting and helping develop the official language communities in our country.

That appears in this document and it is important because it commits all of us to the vitality and development of those communities: French-speaking outside Quebec; English-speaking inside Quebec.

After the signing of the Charlottetown accord I was in Quebec City for a meeting of the Quebec Liberal Party at which they had a special meeting to discuss and vote on the Charlottetown accord. This question came up from many people who were posing questions to Premier Bourassa. There were some 3,500 to 4,000 people meeting at Laval University. I thought he made very clear the importance to Quebec of its official language minority, the English-speaking minority, and that those Canadians whose official language was English were in effect part of the distinct society that is Quebec. If you looked at the crowd, at the people who were at that meeting, there were many whose first language was English and there were many, clearly, from a whole range of cultural and racial groups throughout the world who live as Canadians in the province of Quebec and who were saying, "This is a good accord and we want those languages protected."

The next statement that appears here: "Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed and continue to contribute to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity." Again, in going through the Meech experience, many groups came before us and said, "We want to see that kind of commitment expressed in the Constitution." It is expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the equality rights section, but here it is simply affirmed again that we see that as being critical. That protection to deal fairly and equitably no matter anyone's racial or ethnic background is very important to us as Canadians.

I've already mentioned the next clause, which is, "Canadians are committed to a respect for individual and collective human rights...."

Then: "Canadians are committed to the equality of female and male persons." Here, as I think members know, there has been a good deal of discussion in the country as to whether this list of fundamental characteristics, in particular this statement committing us to the equality of female and male persons, somehow is limiting on rights, that it is creating a hierarchy of rights.

I think here, as we try to wrestle with some of these issues -- I am not a lawyer; most of us aren't -- what we have to do is look at our Constitution in terms of what is stated, in terms of what is intended in the fundamental characteristics, and use some common sense in looking at exactly how we're to read these clauses.

In my own view, I believe this statement of fundamental characteristics adds to and enhances our understanding and respect for all the rights that are enumerated here in the fundamental characteristics and in the charter. I think as Canadians we should be proud of that. I see this statement in the Canada clause as something which in the future we would proudly display in schools, classrooms, lobbies of buildings, saying: "That's something we feel very proud of. That's something that is important to us as Canadians, and we are going to work towards really trying to ensure that those characteristics are reflected in everything that we do."

1830

Maintenant, j'aimerais faire plusieurs remarques au sujet des minorités francophones et anglophones dans notre pays, en conséquence de l'accord de Charlottetown. Je pense qu'il est toujours très important de souligner à tous les Canadiens que la protection et le développement qui sont signalés dans la clause Canada sont tellement importants pour nous en Ontario.

Je pense que, depuis les années 60, avec l'ancien premier ministre, M. Robarts, chaque gouvernement a essayé de définir les droits de notre minorité officielle, de notre minorité linguistique, la communauté francophone, et petit à petit et de plus en plus, de créer une bonne protection -- pas simplement une bonne protection, mais les outils nécessaires pour le plein développement de notre communauté francophone. Je pense que cet accord nous donne une direction claire et ferme, et que dans nos politiques ici à l'intérieur de l'Assemblée provinciale, nous allons donc continuer à développer les programmes et les services pour notre communauté francophone. Et ça va arriver.

J'étais très content de voir que l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario a appuyé cet accord, même s'il y avait peut-être certaines choses que la communauté francophone aurait bien aimé voir. Mais, en balance, c'est bon pour le Canada, c'est bon pour l'Ontario et c'est bon pour la communauté francophone.

Deuxièmement, j'aimerais souligner l'engagement que ça fait aussi pour le gouvernement du Québec, d'inclure dans la société distincte la communauté anglophone. Je pense que, de plus en plus, comme Canadiens, nous pouvons bien voir que nous pouvons accepter ces deux communautés minoritaires, ces deux communautés linguistiques. Nous pouvons les protéger sans nuire à personne, sans nuire à aucun gouvernement et sans nuire aux droits fondamentaux d'autres Canadiens. Donc, pour moi, cet accord est très important pour les communautés minoritaires dans le pays.

What then can we make of this accord with all of its clauses? Many people have come forward with questions, wondering: "How do I make up my mind? How do I make a decision?" I hear people on one side saying, "This isn't any good, it's going to cause problems." I hear people on the other side saying, "This is what we ought to be doing."

Again, I would come back and ask Canadians, ask Ontarians, to use common sense, to go back to Premier Ghiz's statement, "We mustn't let the prophets of perfection become the enemies of the good," to look at the amendments contained in the Charlottetown accord and to read those with the rest of the Constitution, to read those with the society that we have evolved, and to say: "Is this good? Does this take us forward?" I believe the answer to that is, yes, it does.

The other question is people saying: "What are the implications if we vote Yes? What are the implications if we vote No?" I think we have to be very careful here in saying to Canadians that there are legitimate concerns and legitimate issues that are raised by the Charlottetown accord that all of us must deal with forthrightly and directly, and that we need to speak frankly and openly with people in the public meetings that we attend about what is clearly there and is clearly intended in the Charlottetown accord, where there is room for interpretation or where we can't identify every single issue that is going to flow from it, but in doing that to also recognize that this accord comes from a long process of involvement by Canadians and their governments over a period, as I said before, of some 25 years, where with common sense, with compromise, with give and take, we now have a document in front of us where we are asked for the first time as individual Canadians to vote Yes or No.

This is not something that is being imposed by government. Every single Canadian is being asked to vote. I felt that was very important. I think all of us involved in the select committee did. There was a risk. If I had been asked four years ago whether I believed we ought to have a referendum on the Constitution, I would have been concerned about that. I would have said, "Aren't we elected to make those decisions?"

But I think if we've learned anything as we've gone through this long voyage of constitutional reform, it is that at the end of the day that is a fundamental document that affects all Canadians, and that people, thoughtful Canadians, want to have their say and want to be given the responsibility and the privilege of casting their vote.

Obviously when we then bring it to the people of this country, they have two options: They can support it or they can vote it down. So it is up to us, myself, as one of those who is saying, "I hope you will vote Yes," to answer the question, to try to deal with the concerns and to say: "This is who we are. Let's go forward in supporting this accord."

I would close my remarks by underlining again that I believe this document, the Charlottetown accord, comes to us at an important crossroads in our history where there are some choices to be made and where, I believe, we can positively say Yes to the Charlottetown accord. I believe that says Yes to our future as a strong and united Canada, one in which, for our children and their children, we will have the capacity, as a country, as a nation, to develop the programs and policies that quite rightly should be developed through our political process but protected by a strong statement within our Constitution in terms of the rights and freedoms that we have and in terms of who we are as a people.

I ask those in Ontario who are still undecided to look at the document, to talk to each of us, whoever it is who is their member, to talk to friends, but to make the decision based on this document, not to make the decision based on individual or other problems that this country faces. We will have an opportunity and a time to have another federal election. Dare I say another provincial election? All of these things will work out over time and in their own way, but what we are asking here is that each of us in a responsible way looks carefully at what has evolved in terms of this constitutional document and comes up with an answer for Canada.

I believe the Charlottetown accord is good for Canada and is worthy of our support. I urge everyone on October 26 to support the accord.

1840

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to share a few thoughts on the Charlottetown accord, pleased to follow the member for York North who, when it comes to a technical understanding of every nuance, of every clause that is in the Charlottetown accord, is unparalleled and unmatched, certainly by me and by most Ontarians, I suggest. I'm not going to attempt to repeat some of the understandings and interpretations of the clauses, because very few have that technical knowledge, certainly not better than the member for York North.

What I'd like to do in the time allocated to me is talk a little bit about the nitty-gritty of what people are saying to me about this Charlottetown accord and why they plan to vote Yes or No, based upon some of these assumptions. Some I think are myths and I'd like to address those today; some are reality and I'd like to reinforce those as best I can.

I stated after the Charlottetown accord was negotiated and we came back into this Legislature, in remarks on September 30, that I would vote Yes and I gave some of the reasons why. I don't want to repeat those today, either. For those who are watching, who are interested, I'm sure they were watching that day as well. Most observers of us usually are regular. For those who are tuning in today, I'd be happy to send them a copy of the Hansard of September 30, should they so wish.

I said at that time, though, that the Charlottetown accord is the "cumulative result of the most intensive and extensive process of self-discovery ever conducted by a country," when you think of back in the 1950s and the 1960s and the talk of repatriation, of bringing our Constitution home from England and all the conferences. Some have alluded to some of the history, back, I guess in a serious way, in the days of Robarts, if you can believe it, going back that far, to put it into the perspective of Ontario history, and Davis and Peterson and now 1992.

It's surprising to me that I still run into those who say, "What's the rush?" I say, "Listen, for 50 years almost, there's been this preoccupation with the Constitution, for the last 15, certainly the last 11, since I've been elected in 1981," and they say, "What's the rush?" I think of this repatriation. Many don't understand it is not complete. I have many say to me: "Mike, what's the matter? This Constitution we've had has served us well for 125 years. Why now?" I say: "We don't have the same Constitution we had for 125 years. There was a repatriation process and it's never been completed." The Trudeau round, as I call it, brought the Constitution home from England. What a serious mistake that was because it wasn't complete, aside from whether you wanted to bring it home or not.

I've long argued, do we need a Constitution? I don't need one to tell you how I feel about this country, about Canada. It is the political will of the people, not of the politicians, the political will of the people of the day in all our 10 provinces and in the federal government that will determine what governments will do and how they'll act and how they'll respect individual rights and how they will interact with one another. I never fail to take the opportunity, and I'll do so again today, to point out that in Great Britain the last written word was the Magna Carta in the 13th century. So why this preoccupation? I don't know.

I tell you this, that countries outside of Canada, to a country, don't understand why we're so preoccupied with every nuance of every word that we want to write down in a Constitution. History has shown us that if the political will is there at any given point in time to do something, it will be done, whether it is in the Constitution or whether it is not, and if the political will is there to ignore the Constitution, that's done all the time, in Canada as well.

Why are we so preoccupied with what is in this document? That indeed is one of the points. I think you understand that it has been a long debate, a protracted debate, and there is no going back to the BNA Act; there is no status quo. We got ourselves in limbo here, between the BNA Act and the Charlottetown accord. We had an incomplete document that Quebec said it would not sign, would not agree to, to the extent that it would rather be a country unto itself, unless some modifications were made, and that is the process we are in.

I want to talk about some of the myths about the Charlottetown accord and I then want to talk about some of the aspects, but I want you to understand the context it is in.

I have some advice as well for the Premier. The Premier alluded in his remarks to how he appreciated the advice I gave him, so I'm going to give him some more, because now we're selling the document, we're selling the constitutional accord. I believe the Premier's making some mistakes, and what better opportunity than right here for me to suggest that the Premier adjust his part of the Yes campaign a little bit.

I was looking at the article by Bob MacDonald today: "Mulroney, Rae Out: Yes Win." What MacDonald is suggesting is that Brian Mulroney and Bob Rae agree to quit if there is a Yes vote, that nothing will promote a Yes vote more than that. This is Bob MacDonald's view. Then he gives an alternative. He says: "Mulroney and Rae could switch sides and campaign openly for the No side. That could turn off a number of No voters," and give us a guaranteed Yes result as well. Many of you will say that's nonsense and I say to Bob MacDonald that it is nonsense.

However, I want to talk about Bob Rae's comments. I believe that in every speech that I have seen -- certainly, if it's not in every speech, it is what the media are selectively printing -- is his reference to, "I know you hate the Prime Minister; I know you hate Brian Mulroney, but don't get back at him by voting No for this referendum." That is playing right into the hands of Preston Manning. That's Preston Manning's whole campaign, to remind people that it's Mulroney's deal. There are two things wrong with that, and I'm going to get to Preston Manning in a minute.

One is that it's not Mulroney's deal. He was hardly present. So for the Premier to constantly remind people of that I think is a very foolish way to try to get Yes votes. I implore him to grow up and not fall into the tactics of Preston Manning and others. I also suggest to the Premier that among many of the people I talk to, they think: "Wait a second now. Was this Mulroney's deal, Rae's deal?" Because they hate Rae as much as Mulroney. In fact, among a lot of the people I talk to, they hate him more.

But the fact of the matter is that this is Rae's deal more than Mulroney's. This is the premiers' deal, Clyde Wells's deal, Joe Clark's deal, the native leaders' deal. If it were Brian Mulroney's deal there would probably be property rights in the Constitution and there probably would be an economic union, a drop of interprovincial trade barriers. Those were the things Mulroney wanted.

Mulroney's only role in all this basically was to say, "We're going to let the people decide." As the only provincial leader, and virtually the only politician, it seems, in this Legislature, who has called for and advocated a referendum, and one who supports the people having the say, I say to Brian Mulroney, thank you for giving us the referendum. Even though, Brian, you didn't do it originally, even though you seemed to maybe have been forced into it, at least now we have it, over the objections of Bob Rae, over the objections of the Premier, over the objections of the Liberal Party. The people have a say.

I say to the Premier that any reference to this as Mulroney's deal is hypocritical on your part, because they hate you as much as they hate Mulroney. Why open that up? Why play into the hands of Preston Manning?

1850

I have a second piece of advice for the Premier before I get on to others. When it comes to the referendum, we know the Premier of the province of Ontario is not committed to the referendum, never has been, and even now, when this Brian Mulroney whom he seems to hate so much has said publicly on two occasions, "It's 50% plus one in 10 provinces or no deal," when Joe Clark has said, "It's 50% plus one in all 10 provinces or it's no deal," the Premier of Ontario won't make that commitment. Bob Rae now says, "Well, we'll have the referendum, but it's not binding." That is hurting the Yes side. I've heard a number of people say, "Oh well, if we vote No in Ontario it doesn't matter, because Bob Rae said it's not binding." Well, it is binding. It's binding on any politician who is listening to the people these days. It should be binding. The Prime Minister said it was binding; Joe Clark said it was binding. And if Bob Rae would come out and say: "It's binding. I will live by the vote of the people as I should; this is democracy," then I think it would help the Yes voters, because he's allowing people to vote No with some immunity that there is an alternative.

I want to talk today about the alternative as well. There's a myth that, if this deal is turned down, the status quo is okay, that we can carry on the way we are. That is a myth. The BNA Act is gone. We have an incomplete Constitution that Quebec says it will not accept. Rather than accept that, they will move to separate from Canada. So that is the result of the No side. It's not alarmist. If that's what people want -- and I think they should make up their minds -- if they feel this deal is as flawed, as many do, they should vote No. But understand that the status quo is not one of the results of voting No. Understand that.

Those are my two points of advice for the Premier of this province. One of the reasons, I believe, why the Yes vote is declining in the province of Ontario -- he hasn't taken my advice on many other things, including some of the legislation, including the unionization of the province, including the massive tax increases, including the $10-billion deficit. He didn't take my advice on economic union, on property rights, on some of the other things. I hope he'll take my advice on these two aspects. I believe, contrary to all the political experts, it looks like, and certainly the pollsters and the media -- they don't understand the politics, the dynamics, the polling of referenda. If they had truly looked around the world at any complicated referendum -- not the simple, "Are you in favour of abortion or opposed? Yes or No," "No death penalty, Yes or No," but a complicated Yes or No question to a complicated problem like the Constitution -- it's so much easier to campaign on the No side. Traditionally, the No side spurts into a big lead, and then towards the end people realize they can't say No to the pollster any longer, three weeks before, with immunity. They ultimately have to decide: Is it this deal or is it no deal?

Unfortunately, if the Premier and if the Prime Minister and if those involved with this referendum who really weren't committed to a referendum in the first place had thought about it, we would have had a completely different campaign. We would have had a completely different campaign to encourage and suggest to people that they vote Yes than we have seen. One of the great regrets I have is that many of the people running the campaign, like the Premier of the province of Ontario, Bob Rae, and like Brian Mulroney, were not committed to a referendum. So it's the Brian and Bob show, and it's not a very good one.

However, let's deal with some of the aspects of the deal. Let's deal with Preston Manning first. Preston Manning says there will be no personality for him in this debate. No personality. He's just going to deal with the issues, he said. Preston said, "I'm going to talk about the deal and why it's flawed" -- and every ad he has talks about it as Brian Mulroney's deal. Well, it's not Brian Mulroney's deal. He, of all of the leaders of various governments, had the least to do with the deal. Bob Rae had more to do with it. Clyde Wells had more to do with it. Joe Clark had more to do with it. So if Preston really believes that, if he wants to talk about the issues, why is it that every one of his free-time ads talks about Brian Mulroney's deal? It's to conjure up that negativism, to say, "If Brian Mulroney's for it, you must be opposed to it." That's the first thing I have to say to Preston.

The second is what a disappointment Preston was when he came into Ontario with his first Yes campaign speech and said to Ontarians, "Don't make up your mind now." This was the man of principle from the west. He said, "Don't make up your mind now." By the way, he stands for a lot of things I agree with: balanced budgets that many governments, Conservative, Liberal and NDP, have abused -- a number of things. He said Ontarians should wait to see how the rest of the country's going to vote. Wait for the pollsters to tell you how the rest of the country's going to vote, and you should vote the same way. This man of principle, who has been as critical as I have of government by poll, of government without principle, of government without value -- and yet this is what he told Ontarians to do. He lost a number of supporters right there.

When he does talk about the specifics, he talks about three aspects. He says there's no triple E Senate. Well, Premier Getty, soon to be ex-Premier Getty, obviously with no motive any longer, the strongest, loudest, noisiest, most insistent advocate of triple E Senate, says there is a triple E Senate and says this is what the west wanted. So do we believe Don Getty, who has absolutely no political motive left? Do we believe Don Getty, who says we have a triple E Senate, or do we believe Preston Manning, who has a lot of reasons to try to distance himself politically from any of the established politicians of the day? I believe Don Getty. There is a triple E Senate.

I don't particularly like it. I don't think it's in Ontario's interests, but on balance, as part of the package, I believe it's in Canada's interests. I think it's as good as or better than the Senate we have, and the only better choice is probably no Senate. Perhaps one day that too will come to pass. But in the meantime we're surely no worse off with this elected Senate, a triple E Senate, than we were.

The second thing Preston Manning talks about is the social charter. He says, "Don't vote for this, because there's a social charter in it, and that will commit the federal government to expensive social programs whether the money is there or not or whether they want to or not." Well, Preston Manning is wrong. Just as Bob Rae stood in the House today and said, "Oh yes, the social charter means something," it means absolutely nothing in the way of commitments; nothing. It is not binding and it means nothing. It is not challengeable in the courts. Every government -- every provincial government, every federal government -- can completely ignore it for ever and a day.

It's a nice statement of intent we all agree with, that we will have national social programs. The Premier today stated that other premiers who first looked at him -- "Are you crazy?" -- afterwards supported it. The reason they supported it? Because it's not justiciable and it's not binding, and they were prepared to support it as a principle of intent. So in that case, both Preston Manning and Bob Rae are dead wrong by every constitutional expert who has analysed this deal.

Many are arguing that there should be firmer guarantees for national social programs, and they are disappointed it's not in there. I say to them, the Constitution is not the place for that. The Constitution is how the federal government, the provincial government, what powers they have, will interact to bring on whatever programs we want at the time, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there as a protection for individuals from big governments. That's all. That's all the Constitution is. So the second argument put forward by Preston Manning falls by the wayside.

The third one he uses has a little more legitimacy. It's the 25% for Quebec. Nobody has talked about that. Those of us here on the Yes side, for some reason or other want to ignore some things that are in this agreement. I think we should talk about it. People I'm talking to are concerned about this.

This deal entrenches the right of Quebec to 25% representation in the House of Commons for as long as it's in the Constitution. What does the 25% mean? First of all, Preston Manning brings this up. He doesn't bring up Prince Edward Island, which has 10 times that representation for the basis of its population, because bringing up PEI doesn't invoke that anti-French, anti-Quebec sentiment that might encourage people to vote No. But if you're really concerned about this principle of representation by population, then you would think you would bring up PEI. However, he does not bring that up.

But the 25% representation by population for Quebec, de facto has been virtually guaranteed in existing constitutions now, not quite as directly as this. It is a fact of life. They are entitled to in excess of 25% today, and demographers tell us that that's likely to be the case for the next 20 to 30 years. This part, though, is one of the most difficult, I think, for people to have to come to grips with. I think this could be a problem 20 or 30 years from now.

1900

All I can say, to those who feel this is a dealbreaker, is: "Let's have a country for the next 20 or 30 years and let's deal with it when the time comes." It can always be dealt with at any time that anyone in Canada thinks it's a problem. I doubt that 30 years from now, if the Quebec population drops to 24.5% and it's entitled to one fewer seat, 69 instead of 70 -- I don't know how many they have -- or 81 instead of 82, I really doubt this is going to have an significant impact on my child's education, on jobs, on the economy or on retraining or on whether there's a political will to balance the budget. I doubt it.

But if at the time Canadians feel it's a concern or other provinces feel it's concern, it can be addressed and it can be changed. If it's such a problem that Quebec will use a veto to not change it, then nine provinces can opt for sovereignty-association. The precedent has been set. But at least we'll have had a country for 20 or 30 years. At least we'll have had an opportunity to work our way beyond this last 50-year period of trying to repatriate the Constitution.

So I say to Preston Manning: "Your arguments ring a little hollow to me compared to all the great achievements that are contained in the Charlottetown accord. I understand why, in your ads, you try and call this Brian Mulroney's deal, encouraging people to vote No for that reason even though it is not Brian Mulroney's deal; it is Canada's deal."

The second thing I want to talk about that has not really been talked about too much -- and these are the concerns I'm hearing and my caucus members told me in caucus today that they're hearing from people -- is Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau has struck a chord, because Pierre Trudeau talked about Quebec. He said that Quebec -- what were his words, because they have had an impact -- is blackmailing us on the Constitution and that, if this deal goes through and if it's Yes across the country, Quebec will blackmail us some more and is never satisfied.

I refer everybody -- I'm going to reprint copies of this and have it available in my office if anybody wishes copies or doesn't have access to the Globe and Mail of October 8, 1992 -- to an article by Gordon Robertson, who is the former Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the federal cabinet, who was Trudeau's closest adviser, who was his key constitutional adviser through all those years and who started out, as he says in the article, as a friend of Pierre Trudeau's.

"Pierre and I worked together as juniors in the Privy Council office from 1949 to 1950, preparing for and helping with the federal-provincial conferences on the Constitution in January and September of 1950" -- 42 years ago.

He goes on to talk about how he moved with Pierre Trudeau. When he became principal secretary to the cabinet, he says, "Virtually every working day from then until I retired as secretary to the cabinet in 1975 began with a meeting in Mr Trudeau's office," dealing with the problems of government.

Then, after that, when he stepped down, he continued for another four years, until Mr Trudeau's government was defeated in 1979, as the senior adviser in all the constitutional conferences of that period. He has no vested interest and he comments, in the Globe and Mail article of October 8, on how Pierre Trudeau is misleading the people of Canada, quotes such as,

"My honest opinion now is that Mr Trudeau is misleading the people of Canada as they try to think through the answer they must give on October 26."

"Mr Trudeau accuses the governments of Quebec, over the years of constitutional discussion, of asserting 'traditional demands' that changed and grew as various of the 'demands' were granted."

Gordon Robertson points out that as far as constitutional demands go, Quebec has never been given one single thing, ever, at least from his recollection back in 1949. Quebec constitutionally has never been given any one of its demands. So Trudeau says when they get one, they ask for more. They blackmail for more.

The fact of the matter is, as pointed out by Gordon Robertson, Quebec has never been granted anything. Trudeau said, "The only constant being that as soon as the ransom was paid, the Quebec government would come up with a new one." Gordon Robertson says that no ransom was ever paid. Constitutionally, we never gave Quebec ever what it wanted.

I've talked about it in this House on a number of occasions. It's very simple what Quebec wanted constitutionally. They wanted the power over language and culture to be in Quebec City, not in Ottawa. They didn't trust the majority of English Canada to protect the French language and the French culture. They have continually asked for that power and the federal government has continually said no, particularly with Trudeau, "No, you can't have that." They said, "We'll give you government offices in Hull." They didn't ask for that. They said: "We're not stupid. We'll take it."

Successive federal governments have perpetrated this myth on the people of Canada, that Quebec somehow or other wants the country to be bilingual. Trudeau wanted the country to be officially bilingual, not Quebec. Quebec said: "We will protect the French language and culture here in this province. We don't trust that power with all of Canada, with the domination of English in Canada." I agree with Quebec, always have.

But for Trudeau to blame Quebec because Trudeau himself would never agree to the one request Quebec wanted in repatriating the Constitution, in the 1981 deal, in Meech Lake and now in Charlottetown, this is a charade. Quebec has said, "You won't give us the power over language. Then we'll have to have the power over these other 15 things that will de facto give us the power over language -- immigration." They get into all the other things.

The simple answer 50 years ago was, "Give the power over language and culture to the provinces." We wouldn't do that, and Trudeau blames Quebec for that. I blame Trudeau for that. I blame a succession of federal governments for that, including the current federal government.

Who is this? This is Gordon Robertson, who was there every step of the way, who says Trudeau is lying. This blackmail suggestion of Trudeau's is the most powerful argument in English Canada to vote No and it's based on a lie, it's based on a myth, as told to us by Gordon Robertson, Clerk of the Privy Council, top civil servant job, chief adviser to Trudeau day in and day out and his chief constitutional adviser.

He goes into some of the details, because Trudeau is going to have a book out shortly. Trudeau's agenda, I suggest to you -- because Gordon Robertson shoots down all his arguments -- was his vision of Canada: bilingual, French and English, equally in Quebec City and the city of Edmonton, from sea to sea.

That was rejected by Quebec as it was rejected by the rest of Canada, but the rest of Canada blames Quebec for blackmailing and asking for more when it's never been given one single thing in the Constitution, the one thing it wanted. Quebec blames English Canada for not understanding when in fact it is the federal government, starting with Pierre Trudeau, that our anger should be directed at.

I hope people will request this article. I hope those of us in the Legislature will read it. He talks about the constitutional conferences of 1950 and 1964. They failed. Nothing was given to Quebec. He talks about no changes made:

"All the conferences and meetings during Mr Trudeau's years from 1968 to 1979 were equally unproductive: no change whatsoever. The 1981 conference reached the famous 'agreement without Quebec.'

"The Charter of Rights of 1982 was imposed on Quebec without the agreement of its government. It did not respond to any 'demand' of any government of Quebec. It curtailed the powers of all legislatures and of Parliament. In short, there has been no constitutional change to this day -- not one -- to pay any 'ransom' or 'blackmail.'"

1910

There are a few things. "The Canada clause does not 'prevail' over the provisions of the Charter of Rights. Those rights remain unchanged." Trudeau says it does. Gordon Robertson says that Trudeau is wrong, that he is misleading you, that in fact the Charter of Rights does take precedence over the Canada clause.

The second thing Trudeau says is that the accord "would mean the end of social programs in the poorer provinces," trying to stir up fears. Gordon Robertson says Trudeau is wrong. "The accord would not 'mean the end of social programs in the poorer provinces.' All it would mean" -- people have asked me about this and I think they should understand what it means -- "is that such programs, in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, could not be imposed on a province without its consent and the chance to mount its own program. Nor does the province get federal money on demand; it must have a program 'that is compatible with the national objectives.' Nor can a court compel Parliament to vote money for a provincial program. Only Parliament can vote funds, and only it can decide.

"And what alternative would Mr Trudeau propose? That the federal government could impose a program in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction against the wishes of the government that has the constitutional power in the area? We had enough of that trouble in the 1960s."

This is typical of a lot of the No campaign. What is their alternative? The power to the federal government to overrule all the provinces and impose something on them against their will? That's what Trudeau wants, or there is no deal.

He talks about Trudeau says that we will never have a common market if the accord is approved. Well, that's nonsense. I disagree with Premier Rae, who says that we've gone a long way towards dropping the interprovincial trade barriers and an economic union. We've gone no way; we've made some simple statement that at some time in the future we'll sit down and look at it. That's what we've been saying for the last 50 years. However, there's nothing different in this Constitution than is in the current one, than is in the BNA Act. There's nothing to prevent us from doing that. In fact, there is a statement of intent. In that sense maybe it's one step forward.

He goes on to say:

"Mr Trudeau's concept of the perfect constitution would have no chance of agreement. Nor would Robert Bourassa's, or Preston Manning's, or Jacques Parizeau's. We cannot get a neater, more precise Constitution that will be acceptable to all the different interests and views in all the different parts of our complex, multicultural, multi-ethnic society."

He concludes by saying:

"Neither Mr Trudeau nor any other critic of the Charlottetown accord has presented an alternative. The status quo is not a realistic possibility."

I ask people, when they take Trudeau carte blanche, as they tell me some are doing -- those who hated his policies now jump on the bandwagon because they've said that Quebec is blackmailing us. It's the federal government that blackmailed us. They blackmailed Quebec and they blackmailed the rest of the country to accept some vision of this country that was unrealistic, impossible and unacceptable. That's all.

If people wish to vote No on the merits of the deal, I understand that. That is your right as a Canadian -- I believe in this referendum process -- but it is also your duty to try and understand the issues as best you can, to discount the myths in making up your mind and vote Yes or No on the basis of the facts, not on the vested interests of Pierre Trudeau who has a very strong vested interest in his vision of this country. Gordon Robertson, as an old chum, as a friend, as a compatriot, as a fellow lawyer who worked so long and hard, who has no vested interest other than presenting the facts: You can imagine how much it must have hurt him to come out and tell the truth for the Canadian people.

The final point I want to address is that people have said to me and my caucus has said to me -- on this weekend they talked about native self-government -- "What does that mean?" There is the uncertainty that's there. The fact of the matter is I asked the same question. Also, the fact of the matter is that until Mr Bourassa joined the debate after July 7, the deal was unacceptable to me. The July 7 agreement was unacceptable to me because nobody knew what native self-government meant and we didn't know what it didn't mean.

When Mr Bourassa came to the table on July 7, he said: "I'm not signing this deal unless I understand what native self-government means. How does it stack up with the charter? How does it stack up with the existing laws of the land? What takes precedence here?" Nobody was able to explain that to him. That's fine.

They said, "We'll work that out over a series of negotiations for the next five years." But it was Mr Bourassa -- not Mr Rae by the way, nor any of the other premiers and shame on them all, I think -- who said then, "If you cannot tell me what it means, I want it clearly understood what it does not mean."

On this issue, we have to thank Premier Bourassa for spelling out what native self-government does not mean. It does not mean that native self-government can in any way go against the principles of peace, order and good government in Canada; that's number one. Native self-government must fit in with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the laws of the land. We thank Mr Bourassa for that. We must thank him as well in that it said it does not mean any more land or any more benefit for natives other than they're already entitled to by the treaties that have been there, or that they would have been entitled to before the Charlottetown agreement. We can thank Mr Bourassa for spelling that out.

The fears that many had about the uncertainty of native self-government, I believe, have been answered. We don't know exactly what it will mean, but we know that it will not mean those things that many bring up as fears: that natives will be able to have their own laws, that they'll be able to have machine guns on reserves, that they'll be able to have something other than they are entitled to now under the existing Constitution.

I want to talk about some of the things the No side is talking about and the myths involved in them. There are in fact some aspects of this deal that any individual would say would not be a first choice. Of course it would not be my first as well. I understand those arguments. I understand those who say, "The deal is unacceptable to me," understanding that the status quo is not there. They will have to make up their own minds on whether they believe something better can be negotiated for Canada. My own view is it cannot, but some may feel otherwise. That's fair. I trust the people. If they get the facts straight and avoid the myths, they will make a decision in the best interests of Canada.

If that decision is No, then I and my caucus will respect that. If we should be asked, as I hope we are not asked, to do something in this Legislature against the will of the people of Ontario, we will vote with the people as they vote in this referendum. This is a binding referendum as far as we are concerned. Otherwise, why spend the time, the effort and the money? Why say to people: "This is your Constitution. You have a choice"?

1920

The Yes committee ads all say that. They all say that it is your decision, not the politicians'. So we respect that. I believe nobody can predict what exactly will happen if the vote is Yes or if the vote is No. We can only speculate, but if Ontarians vote No, we'll respect that and we'll go forward as best we can and we encourage the rest to do the same.

The fact of the matter is, though, that constitutions, apart from being wonderful make-work projects for politicians, constitutional lawyers and consultants, are not the bricks and mortar of a successful country. What really matters is how we go about creating wealth, how we provide equal opportunity for all Canadians to share in that wealth, how we look after our seniors, our children, prepare them for the future, how we take care of our neighbours, how we take care of our environment and the world around us. This is the true measure of a country, not how many constitutional clauses can somehow dance on the head of a pin.

So I close with this. Understand the relative importance of this document, given that history has shown us all around the world that politicians will do and the public will let them do and ask them to do what they think is right, whether or not it's in the Constitution. History has shown this around the world and it has shown us right here in Ontario that Canada's fate ultimately rests not with its Constitution but with the ability and the will of its people to shape it politically, economically and socially.

I believe that this accord represents our best and perhaps our last chance to put this last round, the 50-year round of repatriation, this last round of constitutional wrangling, behind us and get on with shaping a better Canada for us all.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I'm rising tonight to speak for myself as the member for London Centre but also out of my position as minister responsible for women's issues in this government. I want to address specifically the very deep concerns that have been expressed by some women's groups about the constitutional accord reached at Charlottetown in August.

One of the concerns that I have is that the really deep dismay that has been expressed by some of those women may mask the fact that they speak out of their enormous commitment to equality issues, to the enormous amount of work that they have done to try to empower those who are most disempowered -- the poor, aboriginal women, immigrant and racial minority women, the disabled and all our daughters.

So I want to start off by saying that I respect the fears that have been expressed and I recognize our responsibility to describe very clearly why we and many other women's groups do not agree with the interpretation of the accord that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the National Association of Aboriginal Women have.

Having said that, I want to also say that the majority of those concerns appear to stem from the belief that the concerns of women were not represented at the table and that the results of the process, the accord itself, indicate that women's input was not there at the table.

We in Ontario acknowledge very clearly that the process was not perfect and that the connection between the federal constitutional conference and the multilateral process could have been better, and no one has described that more frankly than our Premier. However, we were in a situation of course which required those who are duly elected, democratically elected, to represent their governments at the table, whether they were ministers of intergovernmental affairs or the premiers themselves. The sad fact of political life in Canada is that the leadership in most parliaments is not representative of women. We do not have 52% of our parliaments at any level representative of women. Therefore, the responsibilities of our duly elected governments do not themselves always represent that viewpoint equitably, even though those of us committed to equity try to ensure that balance is achieved.

You know, it is something of a miracle -- and certainly in my short time in politics I'm impressed by how much of a miracle it is -- that 10 duly elected, democratically elected provincial governments represented by their premiers, two territories, four national aboriginal organizations and the federal government, representing all political stripes, all views on constitutional issues, were actually able to reach an agreement. It shows remarkable generosity and remarkable concern.

Of those at the table -- it is true, there were only two women who actually sat at the table: Rosemarie Kuptana, who represented the Inuit people as president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and Nellie Cournoyea, the government leader of the Northwest Territories. But many of us, of course, who are members of governments, who work with the premiers and with the intergovernmental affairs ministers, were in touch at all points of the negotiations with various women's groups and certainly our government was.

The issue, of course, is that all those wishes weren't met and there is no doubt about that. It is very difficult in a negotiation with so many different viewpoints to ensure that absolutely every point is going to be met. But let's look at some of the criticisms; let's look at some of the specific things.

One is the referendum itself. Although, during the constitutional conferences held across this country, women as well as men were saying they wanted some input into the final decision, they now are saying that the referendum becomes a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I can understand that when we have an agreement, for example, at a union table, as union members we must vote for that agreement or against that agreement, because that agreement is what we are faced with ratifying. But it is also true that this particular package makes it possible for additional input into the changes that will happen under this agreement. There are many different points in the agreement where we know there will be further discussion in a bilateral and multilateral sense. It is our intention as a government to ensure that women's groups are involved in this.

Some of those areas are monitoring the social and economic union: the implementation of the principles of the Canadian common market; the Senate electoral system chosen for each province; the possible gender equality and Senate representation; the framework exercise of federal spending power; the negotiation of intergovernmental agreements, particularly with respect to labour market training; protection of CAP under the intergovernmental agreements mechanism; the development of national policy objectives in labour market training, and the discussion of aboriginal gender equality at future first ministers' conferences. Those are all issues we will have a good deal of input into as elected governments and we will be consulting with those various reference groups who are most concerned.

One of the other issues, of course, has largely been laid to rest by the legal text. That is the position of aboriginal gender equality under the aboriginal self-government proposals. It is important for us to be very clear that those changes are very much supported by us and we understand that the wording that talks about inherent self-government as being subject to the equality rights is a very fundamental part of this agreement, one that we certainly assumed was in in the first place. But spelling it out under the legal text is very important.

1930

As we look through the kinds of concerns that people have, the major, final one I wish to speak about is the possible opting out of programs, and it is extremely important that we keep in mind that this was one of the major issues for women during the Meech Lake accord discussion. There was real concern that some of the social programs that might become federal programs might not be available under that, and the concern is the same here.

We would say very clearly from our position that what has prevented federal programs has not been the Constitution but in fact has been the political will of the various governments across Canada, and that what has been achieved in terms of this accord gives us hope that we can reach some agreement around some of those fundamental programs, at least agreement about what the fundamental objectives would be of those programs and how we could ensure that cost-sharing makes those objectives possible in each province.

Without this agreement we have no such assurance, because in fact we have not had a new federal program since the medicare program was instituted some 25 years ago. That is very real for us to have in our minds when we have all sorts of visions of this agreement interfering in terms of federal programs.

We believe, as a province that is taking a leadership role in many social programs, that the leadership role taken by Saskatchewan in medicare is the kind of leadership role that provinces can take and that the achievement of federal programs often starts at the provincial level, not the federal level. The proof of the effectiveness of these programs then becomes something that other provinces and the federal government want to share.

So we would say to those who feel that this somehow prevents those kinds of federal programs that we believe it sets the stage for the accomplishment of those programs and takes away some of the fears that have stood in the way of the spreading of such programs across the province.

As the rest of my colleagues on this side of the House go on, we will be addressing some of the other issues that are of concern to women, because we believe that the dedication, the concern and the commitment of those women who are opposed to this deal need to be validated, need to be respected and indeed need to be answered. We believe very strongly that when people understand the facts of the case, they will vote Yes on October 26, and we as a party will do all we can to answer the concerns.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, according to your instructions, I'll try to do this in under two hours to save time for you and others. In all seriousness, as we are all cooperating in a spirit of goodwill that we're perhaps not used to in this place, having agreed to share the time so that all members have an opportunity to express their views and their concerns, I will be reasonably brief.

One of the areas that I wanted to touch on was the reasons people give me, when I talk to them in the community, for voting No. There's a sense that those of us on the Yes side -- and I guess there appears to be somewhat of an imbalance in that the vast majority of members of this place are on the Yes side, but so be it. Perhaps there's a reason for that, which I won't dwell on.

But the people who say you're voting No, let me tell you a story. I was recently at an opening of a new United Church in my riding and there was a lady there from the hierarchy in the church, very senior in terms of position. I turned to her and she saw the ribbon that I was wearing and asked me what it was. I told her it was a symbol of the Yes committee in Mississauga, the red and white ribbon that we started in Mississauga and that we hope spreads throughout the country. I told her it was for the Yes committee, and she said, "I guess I shouldn't expound on the reasons that I want to vote No." I said, "Just briefly tell me," and we're doing this in whispers in a church of course. She said, "I just want to send a message to that Mulroney guy."

I'll try to put this in as non-partisan a term as I can, but I think most members on the government side in this Legislature recognize, perhaps not in all cases but in many, many cases, that there was a protest vote in September 1990, and your own Premier indeed has said he was surprised at the results and did not expect to become Premier. So I say to the people out there, again being fair and as non-partisan as I can, "Don't make the same mistake with this issue that was made in September 1990." That could happen.

It's not necessary to vote against Mulroney. It's also not necessary, as opposition politicians would know, as we hear on a constant basis people's concerns about things that this government is doing, I say to them, "Don't vote against Bob Rae on this." Frankly, I say quite openly, I think Bob Rae's done a very good job on this. I thought David Peterson, frankly, did a good job at the Meech lake debates, and I think Bob Rae has carried sort of the tradition of Ontario premiers, in areas of national consequence, to be non-partisan and to be leaders, and I think that this goes back through all three parties over a number of years.

I congratulate the Premier for having to take what many people would think are difficult positions. He talked earlier today about many of the negotiations that went on and how at times you don't get everything you want in a particular deal, and I think we have to recognize that. I say to the people that I deal with in the province, in Mississauga and elsewhere: "Don't vote No because you're mad at Mulroney. Don't vote No because you're mad at Bob Rae." I say also, "Don't vote No because you might have some anger towards the province of Quebec."

One of the biggest problems in this whole debate, going back into pre-Meech days and even in the current debate -- and I don't mean to throw this on the press -- is the way things come across to the people. You'll read a headline. It'll scream at you, "Quebec Demands Veto," but then you read the body of the article and what Quebec was perhaps demanding was a provincial veto, for all provinces to have a veto on a particular issue, not just the province of Quebec.

I find when I talk to people in the community and members of my family, members of my community, they're astounded to find out that it isn't just a singular benefit for the province of Quebec, because that's how it's reported and that's how it appears to come across, but in reality a benefit that goes to Quebec, with one exception, goes to every other province. The one exception is the distinct society.

I think we all simply have to make a decision on that, and again, if you're voting No because you're angry at Quebec, I say to people to make sure that you're voting with all the facts, make sure you understand that if indeed you're unable to accept Quebec as a distinct society, then so be it. But frankly, the majority of people I talk to, the large majority, Mr Speaker, really don't see that as an issue any more. They really feel that all you have to do is cross the Ontario-Quebec border to recognize they're pretty distinct in areas of culture and language and just the sense of the community.

Just go to Quebec City, where I believe tonight the Eric Lindros affair is finally culminating with an appearance on le Colisée ice, and God bless him and God bless the Québec Nordiques -- I personally hope Quebec wins, but that's beside the point -- and see the difference. Tell me that it's not distinct from the perspective of culture and of language. But I don't want to argue that, because if people at this stage in this whole constitutional debate are not prepared to accept that Quebec is distinct, then I'm not so sure we can change their minds, nor am I sure we should really discuss it all that much more.

Those are the reasons I get from people, that they're mad at the politicians involved or that they're mad at Quebec, and I'd like them to look a little further than that. One of the things that gets so frustrating and, frankly, the leader of the third party, Mr Harris -- I can't quote it exactly -- made a comment in one of his earlier speeches that "If you're looking for something in this deal for you, stop looking, because what's in the deal for you is a country, the country of Canada."

I think what people have to stop doing is saying, "Can I get more rights? Can I get more leverage? Can I get something that's beneficial to me," whether it's in British Columbia, whether it's in northern Ontario, whether it's in the city of Toronto, whether it's on the east coast or whether it's in Quebec. "What am I looking for here? Am I looking to cut some kind of deal that's going to be beneficial?" What I think we all have to do is put our self-interest aside.

1940

When I ran for the nomination to stand as a provincial member, one of my remarks that night was, "I don't represent a community of interests, but rather I represent the interests of the community." I think that's true of all of us in this place. That's what we have to do. We have to represent the interests of the broad community and not be tied down with a particular community interest group.

I say to those groups that one of the great things about living in Canada is the fact that you can exercise your democratic principles, that if you represent an interest group you can demonstrate, you can fight for benefits, you can do all kinds of things that in other countries simply would not be tolerated. That's one of the great benefits and one of the reasons that those interest groups, in my view, in my respectful view to them, should be working towards ratification of this particular accord, so that we can get on with dealing with their particular interest problems or dealing with the economy or dealing with life in general in this country.

One of the things the Charlottetown accord will accomplish is that, in my view, it won't end the debate on constitutional reform but it will hopefully take it out of a crisis venue. Hopefully, we'll have a plan where once a year there will be a first ministers' conference that will be convened, as it states, and they'll be required to take some aspect of the deal and discuss it and come to some kind of agreement. We'll stop running around saying, "Oh, my God, the country's going to break up; if I vote No, my country's going to fall apart; if I vote Yes, I don't like that particular aspect of the deal," and get rid of this crisis management that just seems to preoccupy us so much in this country. If we can do that, we could put in place a system where, calmly over the years, we can find a way to solve the concerns and the problems of the people.

One thing I said to my own caucus, which I truly believe, is that this deal is only as good as the people involved. If you think about when you go to a lawyer to enter into a contract for whatever -- it could be a marriage contract; it could be a business partnership; it could be anything -- the lawyer will advise you that when you get right down to it, arguing over where the periods go and crossing the t's and all this stuff, the agreement you're entering into is only as good as the people who are entering into it.

I believe that to be the case here. I will admit that if I were negotiating this deal, there may be some things I would have liked to have seen done differently, but you have to take it with a spirit of understanding, not just -- I don't really like the word "compromise," because "compromise" implies that you gave up on something that was important. I think I prefer "cooperation," an understanding that we have to work together.

Think of the diversity of this country. How could anyone expect someone living and working in St John's, Newfoundland, to understand his or her counterpart living and working in Victoria, British Columbia? They're a world apart, literally a world apart, and as a result of that, they're going to have different views. They're going to have different opinions about how things should unfold, different wants and different needs. What we have to create is a federation that allows for that person in St John's to reap the benefits of the local community, whatever those differences happen to be, and at the same time allows the same benefits to accrue to the person in Victoria, but we come together under one roof as one country.

In the very few minutes that are left, I want to just read very briefly from a book entitled Why Meech Failed. I think in analysing what's happening with this deal, we should look at why the last one fell apart. As we go into the last three weeks of this referendum debate, we as a people must give serious thought to the consequences of whatever our decision is.

This is a book by Raymond Breton, who is a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, with a couple of very interesting analyses that he made of the Meech Lake deal. He called it "an accumulation of mutually reinforcing influences into a spiral of misunderstanding and hostility." That was one of the things, creating that spiral. If you think of it, think back to the Saturday night when we thought there was a deal and how it felt great. I remember them calling David Peterson the big guy, as they punched him on the arm, and seven days later that spiral of misunderstanding and hostility drove it into the ground and it fell apart quicker than anyone could have believed.

He talks about a political dynamic that helped transform the debate into a confrontation: "A number of individuals and organized groups in the country used the accord as an opportunity for political action. They saw in it the potential for symbolic or power gains, for compelling authorities to deal with their own grievances, for reversing previous institutional changes, or, in the case of Quebec" -- separatists; that's easier for an Anglo -- "to mobilize support for their cause."

That was my point earlier, that these groups in Meech saw this as an opportunity to gain something, that they could say to the people they represented, whether you're talking about the Judy Rebicks or the Preston Mannings or whomever, that they can gain something, that they can say, "I got this in my negotiations."

That kind of political dynamic destroyed Meech Lake. A lot of people are happy that happened. My plea would simply be that we not allow history to repeat itself in the case of the Charlottetown accord.

He talks about the polarization, the tension between centralization and decentralization -- very important -- and the tension between individual and collective rights; we hear that all the time. All of a sudden, this spiral and this misunderstanding around those issues became the fight of the day and the whole thing flew apart.

Then he says finally, "As contradictions are inevitable in any complex, heterogeneous society, the legitimation of policies and programs must be sectoral." That is very important. "They must be founded on basic values, but they must also take into account the particularities of different institutional sectors and different sociohistorical contexts."

Large words, but in essence what I take this as saying is that we concentrate on the sectoral improvements in a document like this and stop worrying so much about the individual gains or the personal gains or the gains for the special interest groups and we look at Canada as a whole. We look at what can benefit everybody. "Maybe I've got to give a little to get a little." That's what I see this particular agreement doing.

He closes this section of why Meech failed by saying, "Flexibility is needed to negotiate the practical arrangements that will accommodate and reconcile the many pieces of the Canadian kaleidoscope."

The "practical arrangements," because it all comes down to pragmatics. It all comes down to the fact that once you take all of this -- look at this stuff -- once you take all of this documentation and all of these words, it's only as good as the people who put it together, who can now fine-tune and tone this thing to the benefit of all Canadians.

If on the 27th a No vote is successful in this country or in major parts of this country, I don't know if the country will fall apart. I don't know that the Yes vote is necessarily the most important thing in the history of this country. I think it is to date and, therefore, I'm going to vote Yes for many reasons. I think that on balance this is a good deal. What the No campaign will try to tell you is that it's a bad deal and that the Yes campaign won't talk about the deal. That's not true. It's a deal that on balance offers a sensitive understanding of the different needs of the people from coast to coast.

It's a deal that offers a sensitive understanding of the needs of our aboriginal people. Let us not forget that second to perhaps South Africa, no country has treated its natives as poorly as Canada and it's time to right that wrong. But I don't say that on an emotional plea basis; I say that as purely a statement of fact, because what we have to do in the next three weeks leading up to this vote, I believe, is try to strain the emotionalism out of it -- very hard to do when you're talking about your country and your future and your kids and everything else -- and hit them with hard, cold facts that say a Yes vote will be good for prosperity, a Yes vote will be good for unity, a Yes vote will be good for tolerance and understanding, which in my view is the hallmark of this great country.

1950

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It is with pride that I stand in this House and take part in this debate, and it is with pride, a great deal of resolve and with utter conviction that I say to my constituents, to the residents of Ontario and to the members of this assembly, that on October 26 I will be voting Yes, for I believe by saying Yes to the Charlottetown accord, I will be saying Yes to the future of Canada.

It is not my intention to revisit all the different provisions of the accord, nor is it my intention, in the time available to me, to give an interpretation of the legal text. Instead, as the elected representative for London North, as an Ontarian and Canadian, and as a parent who wishes the very best for our children and for the generations to come, I intend to state the reasons why I believe the constitutional accord should be endorsed by the people of this province.

I will begin by reminding everyone why we are engaged in constitutional reform. In 1982, when our Constitution was repatriated, nine of the 10 provinces were signatories to it. The 10th, Quebec, was not at the signing ceremony, nor was it involved in the patriation of the Constitution.

Since that time, recognizing the need to protect the uniqueness of Canada, our country has been involved, even preoccupied, in trying to address that very serious omission. The Meech Lake accord came close to achieving that goal. It eventually failed because of what some saw as fundamental flaws.

Mr Wells of Newfoundland believed the "distinct society" clause gave too much away and consequentially detracted from the rights of Canadians who did not reside in Quebec. In Manitoba, Elijah Harper, an MLA, derailed passage of the accord because it did not address native rights and the issue of self-government. There was also general dissatisfaction about the process: Too many important decisions were left to too few people.

In spite of the failure of the Meech Lake accord and the difficult times that followed, the leaders of Canada embarked on a new round of constitutional talks. They did so not because of personal preference or because they were gluttons for punishment; they did so because they recognized the overwhelming need to move on issues of critical importance to Canada's future, issues such as Quebec's status in Confederation, issues such as the status of our first nations and aboriginal peoples and issues such as that brought to the table by our western premiers, the desire for a reformed Senate.

So if Meech Lake could be construed to have been a Quebec round, the Charlottetown accord is so much more. It is more in terms of its aspirations, for it redefines the operation of the federal government and it redefines the relationship between Ottawa, the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal peoples. It is so much more because of the urgency to move on issues preventing our economic development and growth.

Finally, the accord is so much more because it achieved something unique. It achieved agreement by the 17 participants at the table. Unanimity could not be achieved on the Meech Lake accord. It could not be achieved in 1982 on the repatriation of the Constitution. Yet in 1992, against all odds, this year, this July, it was achieved. The Charlottetown accord is a document that reconciles the hopes and aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast. It reconfirms the role of the federal government and it allows for flexibility for provincial governments as we work together to face a new and challenging future.

On my way to this assembly this morning, I heard on CBC Radio a No supporter who spoke against the accord. He stated that the Constitution had worked for 125 years, so why bother changing it? With logic like that, instead of driving my car here, I would have been using a horse and buggy. After all, a horse and buggy worked for 300 years or more, so why bother changing it? With logic like that, my staff would have been using a pen and paper this morning to do their work. Instead, as we all know, they're using computers. Life does move on. The people of Ontario must realize that a constitution is a living document. It is an ongoing reflection of how we view ourselves and the measures and terms under which we wish to live as a country.

Four years ago the then Premier of this province, David Peterson, said of our Constitution: "Each generation has recognized that for the Constitution to endure, it must adapt to its environment. The Constitution is the backbone of our nation, its sustaining moral fibre. It must reflect who we are. It must be strong enough to allow the normal exchange of reasonable individual, collective and regional political expression. Amending it is to comply with our vision of that great country."

I believe the Charlottetown accord meets that exacting standard. To those who argue that this accord is flawed, I would say yes, perhaps it is. I would go further and say that if I had been privileged enough to have had a seat at that table, I would have entered -- and I stress the word "entered" -- the negotiations with perhaps a different set of requests. But I'm not convinced that the end result would have been any different, for what we have before us is a compromise, and I underline that word "compromise." I do not use the word "compromise" with any sense of apology. If anything, I believe we should view this compromise with pride, for it reconciled the seemingly irreconcilable, brought conflicting visions to the table and somehow resulted in harmony.

This accomplishment cannot be minimized. Any of us who has worked in public life knows how difficult it can be to achieve agreement on even the simplest of issues. For this accord to have been reached is an achievement of historic note, and everyone involved deserves our praise. I'm particularly privileged this afternoon to be able to put these words on the record at this time in the history of our country.

I would also say to those who believe that a better agreement can be reached that their view is without historical support or foundation. The 10 provinces and the federal government could not reach an agreement in 1982, even though they tried. They could not reach an agreement in 1989 with Meech Lake, and many of us in this House today were party in our own way to those discussions. In spite of our best intentions, we were not successful.

Even now, the Charlottetown accord is under attack in the west because some say it gives too much to Quebec. It is under attack in Quebec because some say it does not give enough to Quebec. It is under attack by some native people because it does not give them enough, yet it is under attack by Mr Parizeau in Quebec because he claims it will give them too much. It is under attack by some because it gives the provinces too much, yet it is under attack by others because it does not give special interest groups enough.

2000

Earlier I spoke of Mr Wells, an opponent of the Meech Lake agreement because he believed it gave Quebec too much. Mr Wells's concerns have been met; Newfoundland supports this accord. I spoke of Manitoba and the desire for native self-government. Those concerns have been met; Manitoba supports the accord.

I mentioned the strong desire, even demand, in western Canada for a reformed Senate. Mr Getty, Premier of Alberta, in many ways the well-spring for a triple E Senate, has had his concerns met; Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia support the accord, and of course Quebec. Since 1982, they have attempted, along with the federal government and the other partners in Confederation, to find the formula to allow them to become signatories to the Constitution. Just last night the Premier of Quebec said, "By voting Yes, we vote to build Quebec without destroying Canada." Mr Bourassa's concerns have been met; Quebec supports the accord.

Many people will think I'm presumptuous in using "supports the accord" in attributing those words to different provinces, but what has our democratic process come to when we elect, in a clear opportunity to place your vote, people to represent us and then send them, after much public discussion, to a table to do what they have to do in reaching an agreement on our behalf?

You can imagine what state of affairs this country will be in if in fact after all the compromises, after all the main arguments, after all the main agreements on behalf of the different provinces and the main expectations on behalf of the different provinces have been met by their premiers Canadians choose not to support their leaders.

During negotiations, there are probably three reasons for a strike or three reasons to turn down an agreement or three reasons not to be successful. First, the unrealistic expectations of people on both sides; that's a reason not to reach an agreement. Second, the inexperience of the negotiators; that's probably a reason on both sides not to reach an agreement. Third, the one that any workplace, any institution would fear the most is that the day-to-day operations of that institution are not working.

Let not those three reasons for striking down this agreement tell us that Canada is in that kind of difficulty. I believe the day-to-day working relationships between our provinces and in our country are somewhat strained from time to time, but this is the best country in the world and people choose to live here. Above all, they choose Canada.

Secondly, let it not be said that those who represented us at any table, and especially in Charlottetown, were not experienced. There was a great depth of experience, because in a democracy as we have, we have our elected politicians and we have those persons who advise them, and some of them have been there for a long time and have suffered through the deliberations of Meech and again in Charlottetown.

Let it not be said that the expectations of those at the table were unrealistic, because I believe that the real expectation of everyone at that table is that in the end we have and retain Canada as a nation as we know it. Although I said from time to time that Newfoundland has what it wants, that the western provinces got what they wanted, that Quebec got what it wanted, I understand it's still up to the people to make their choice, but I think it's at great risk if they don't vote in favour of this agreement.

So many conflicting views, desires, visions of Canada are all brought together in this one, and I underline the word, fragile agreement that establishes a road map for the future growth and development of this great country of ours. It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said, "The governing motive of my life has been to harmonize the diverse elements which compose our country." I believe the architects of the Charlottetown accord in their work shared that same vision of leadership and of Canada. They accomplished a great deal, and I believe their accomplishment deserves my support. I will be voting Yes on October 26. I am confident I will be in a majority.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Like my colleagues who've spoken before me, I feel myself to be honoured and privileged to take part in this debate on what I consider Canada at the crossroads, the Charlottetown accord.

I'm going to keep my comments very simple and understandable for everyone. Most of the people, myself included, haven't much desire to delve into the so-called legal text pertaining to the agreement. I have it here and I've looked through it and I'm sure most of the people haven't got the time or the inclination to read that or even to understand it, so I'm not going to go on about that any longer. I'm going to leave that to the constitutional lawyers, to the academics and to the assorted groupies to wrestle with that document later on.

I'd like to speak to the accord and I'd like to call it the "in" deal. Aboriginals are "in" with the inherent right to self-government. Social justice is "in" with the social charter. The west and the Atlantic provinces are "in" with equal representation in the reformed Senate. I'll just juggle my notes here. Quebec is "in" with the recognition of a distinct society.

Of interest to you, Mr Speaker, more efficient government is "in" with better division of powers and less duplication of spending, and to my friends across there who are not paying particular attention, business people are saying that investment will be "in" with the economic union and constitutional stability.

We have negotiated an "in"clusive agreement with unanimous support around the bargaining table. That consensus was difficult to achieve, but the result is an agreement that benefits all Canadians.

The response from the people of Canada has shown we were right to push as hard as we did for the social charter. We have created a social justice blueprint for the future. It is one of the most popular elements of the Charlottetown agreement, with its protection for vital social programs such as medicare.

The recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal self-government is a model for the rest of the world. The government of Ontario fought hard for this. We could not renew the Constitution without the participation of the aboriginal peoples.

This is a document that Canadians can support with some great degree of confidence. Smaller provinces have a greater role to play and more power to exercise with the accord. The reconstituted Senate will allow for more effective input for every region. Better controls on equalization payments and the recognition of the distinct character of Quebec are important regional benefits.

The Constitution already guarantees a minimum number of seats for every province. For example, New Brunswick must have at least 10, Manitoba must have at least 6 and Quebec's floor of 25% of the seats in the House of Commons simply reflects reality. Quebec currently has 25.3% of the population of Canada and that population will remain above 25% for at least the next 30 years. If the population of Quebec doesn't fall below 25%, the floor clause will never have any impact.

2010

The Charlottetown accord guarantees no province will have fewer seats in the Commons than another province with a smaller population.

The benefits of economic union provisions will be felt across this country. The goal of full employment, and the free movement of goods, services and capital will strengthen the economic health of the nation.

No rights have been altered. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not been watered down.

Specific guarantees of the equality of men and women and the equality of aboriginal women and men remain in force.

Equality rights for all citizens -- disabled, ethnic minorities -- will be improved with the Charlottetown accord.

The agreement is an act of what I should call "national reconciliation." It is a remarkable achievement that 10 premiers, the Prime Minister, territorial leaders, aboriginal leaders and others were able to reach such an agreement.

If the agreement is to pass, people must get behind it now. This issue has now become too important for us mere politicians. The people of Ontario and of Canada must make their voices heard.

Citizens must take the opportunity to study the agreement, find out what it's about and get out to vote. This is a historic moment in the life of our country and we must all participate.

There will be some disagreement, and that's the right of all citizens living in a democracy, but there will be no apologies for the hard work and important step forward that this agreement represents.

Although this agreement, like any negotiated compromise, doesn't include everyone's definition of the perfect outcome, I believe we can be pleased with what we have accomplished. We must recognize that it is very unlikely that a better outcome would result if all parties were sent back to the bargaining table once again.

The status quo is not an alternative. We have been trying for some time now to build this solid foundation. It will prove very difficult to pick up the pieces once again if this agreement is rejected.

But Canadians want to move forward. The Charlottetown agreement was created with that in mind, the will to improve the country we love.

We all have a role to play. Study the issues, understand the importance of the accord and then spread the word: This is a good deal, and an agreement we can all be proud of. A vote of No is more than a step backwards; it is a step into the unknown: unknown consequences for our economy, unknown results for our country.

I urge you to consider these opinions as you vote on October 26.

In closing, I'd just like to say that as an immigrant I arrived in Montreal, Canada, way back in the 1950s. As I got off the train that afternoon and strolled up through Montreal with my family and my two young children and listened to the language, I must say it was with a great deal of apprehension that I went to bed that night. I no longer have that feeling. It's been replaced with a passion for Canada. My passion for this land is just like yours, Mr Speaker. It stems from a love of this country and its people, our history and our relationships.

I urge everyone from my riding of Durham East and everyone who's watching on the television this evening to vote Yes with me on October 26.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I cannot help but conclude, after reading the Charlottetown accord, that this is a good document. It is balanced, sensible and in keeping with our times. There is much to appreciate in the accord: the Canada clause, the elected Senate, aboriginal self-government and entrenchment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Constitution.

L'entente de Charlottetown représente, à mon avis, un compromis raisonnable fondé sur le désir de réconcilier plusieurs éléments divergents.

The Canada clause is a generous statement of the Canadian identity. It recognizes the values we cherish and wish to conserve as fundamental characteristics of Canada. I refer to the respect for parliamentary democracy, the equality of men and women, Quebec as a distinct society, the equality of provinces, the inherent right to aboriginal self-government, racial and ethnic equality, and the vitality and development of official-language minority communities throughout Canada.

Along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canada clause upholds our commitment to individual and collective rights. This is an important achievement, because those are not mere words. In comparing Canada's human rights record to other countries', we can rightly be proud. Sure, there remains much work to be done. Some attitudes are no longer acceptable. Changes must be introduced in order that greater social and economic justice prevail. We must continue to strive for the betterment of all members of our society, but the Canada clause definitely represents a step forward.

La clause Canada nous présente une vision moderne de l'État canadien, plus englobante and plus fidèle à la réalité.

The recognition of the inherent right to self-government is long overdue. We cannot erase the mistakes of the past. This year, 1992, is the year of Columbus, the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival on the shores of the American continent. Many persons have criticized the celebration of that event because of its legacy of discrimination and exclusion. It is true that the indigenous populations have suffered well into the 20th century. We cannot erase the injustices committed against the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We can, however, take all measures necessary today to right the wrongs we have perpetuated. Aboriginal self-government is a positive beginning.

The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is also important to note. Quebec has a different language, culture and history. This means that it has different challenges to face.

L'histoire nous démontre que le Québec peut s'épanouir au sein de la fédération canadienne, tout en conservant sa propre identité.

Recognition as a distinct society gives Quebec the tools it needs to meet those particular challenges.

The Charlottetown accord contains other provisions that bring Canada into step with the 1990s.

The triple E Senate: As an equal Senate, it will better represent regional diversity and interests. As an elected Senate, it will gain legitimacy. Entrusted with the Canadian people's mandate, the Senate will be able to fully exercise its powers, thus becoming an effective second chamber.

Additional seats will be added to the House of Commons to better reflect representation by population. Ontario gains 18 seats, to be readjusted after the 1996 census.

The Charlottetown agreement is a product of compromise, and necessarily so, because it reconciles the irreconcilable. It attempts to conciliate different visions of Canada so that these may coexist. The accord reflects a pan-Canadian view of the country, including every single Canadian from Quebec City to Vancouver, from Halifax to Whitehorse.

The accord contains the principle of the equality of all provinces, expressed in an equal, elected and effective Senate. It also reflects linguistic duality and governments' responsibility to promote it, including the Quebec government's particular role in preserving its distinctive character. The accord also includes the aboriginal peoples in a partnership between nations.

2020

We are looking at a document that attempts to compromise between differing views of Canada. There is no single right view of Canada, as some critics of the accord would have it. These critics favour their own view of Canada and wish only to maximize their own interests. They are not ready to compromise. They do not want to listen to all Canadians and try to find a middle ground. They say, "Vote No and we will negotiate a better deal later." The truth is that they could never come up with anything better because they don't have the spirit of compromise. Put Lucien Bouchard, Preston Manning and Judy Rebick in a room and ask them to draw up a new accord. I guarantee they will come out of that room empty-handed.

This is a highly inclusive document. It does not leave anyone out. Taken with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it offers every citizen of this country the protection of his or her basic rights: women, visible minorities, the disabled, linguistic minorities. No one loses in terms of rights and no one will become a second-class citizen in this country. No rights are threatened by the accord. This agreement respects the diversity of its population. It recognizes that there is no such thing as a generic Canadian, as some opponents of the accord would have us believe. I would add that Canada is known worldwide for its respect for diversity.

The notion of equality has been raised many times in the course of the constitutional debate. It has been alleged that not all provinces will be treated equally, that some are getting more than they are entitled to. The fact is Canadian provinces have never been treated equally. Equalization transfer payments to the poorer provinces of Canada are but one example. Programs promoting regional economic development could be considered a form of discrimination against those regions that do not receive such financial assistance. But Canadians accept these programs because they believe in giving everyone a fair chance.

The Charlottetown accord does not create inequalities. It does, however, contain mechanisms that will allow flexibility in the administration of a variety of programs. Recognition of Quebec as a distinct society and recognition of aboriginal self-government do not create different classes of citizens. These two provisions merely give Quebec and native people the tools required for their protection and development. In no manner do these provisions take anything away from Canadians. For the application of equality to be just, it must necessarily take into consideration the conditions that perpetuate inequalities. We must avoid a simplistic view of equality that confuses equality with uniformity.

Some people are wondering what the accord will lead to. What will Canada be like in 10, 15 or 30 years? No one can predict. If the Fathers of Confederation had known how Canada's political system would evolve, they might have been fearful of the consequences of their actions. They might have thought, "This is not what we want." But we cannot base our decisions on what-ifs. We cannot assume that the most negative scenario will come true. We live in a democratic society. This means that safeguards exist to counterbalance extreme views or actions.

Our political system will definitely change in the coming years, and it will probably change in ways we would have never imagined. With or without reform, some kind of change is inevitable. But why assume that the change will be for the worse? Our political institutions must evolve if they are to remain in touch with Canadian citizens and lead us into the 21st century. What seemed appropriate in 1867 may simply no longer be right for the 1990s. This is hardly surprising. Yet reform can be accomplished without compromising basic values such as respect for law and order, individual rights and democracy itself.

I mentioned earlier that the Charlottetown accord represented a compromise between different views of Canada. It also attempts to balance sometimes conflicting values. The timely reform of our political institutions reflects these compromises in a moderate and thoughtful manner.

Let us be confident not only in our institutions but in ourselves, in our capacity as individuals and as a nation to manage change wisely and effectively. Amending a constitution is an undertaking of great magnitude, but it needn't be like Rubik's cube. It will never be perfect. It can never match perfectly every person's expectations. It is impossible to conceive a document that would encompass every need, situation or deficiency that may arise 10, 20 or 50 years from today. However, given our present understanding of ourselves and our society, we can prepare guidelines to lead us to shared objectives such as greater economic prosperity and social justice. Since not all Canadians define these objectives in the same terms, compromise becomes an indispensable part of the process.

Je veux signaler l'importance du compromis et du processus qui ont mené à l'entente de Charlottetown. L'échec de l'accord du lac Meech a été attribué, du moins en partie, à un processus secret et fermé qui excluait la population de ses délibérations.

Cette fois-ci, la population a été consultée. Elle a été invitée à participer à part entière, à donner son avis, à se faire entendre. Cela ne s'est jamais produit auparavant dans l'histoire du Canada. Il y a de quoi être très fier.

The unique consultation process that led to the Charlottetown accord is to be commended. It gave Canadians a voice in the constitutional debate. The plebiscite to be held on October 26 is also a part of the democratic process, only this is a direct democracy. I hope that all Canadians will exercise their right to vote. Not all citizens were able to attend the constitutional conferences, for obvious reasons, but every Canadian eligible to vote can go to a polling booth, vote and be heard. This is one of the most important decisions that all Canadians have to do. You must go out and vote, and I speak especially for the solid majority who have been listening for so long. Your say, your participation, is so important for the survival of this country.

I would ask one thing of Canadians as they prepare to vote. I ask them to consider the constitutional accord and judge it on its own merits. This accord was not whipped up overnight. It is a sound document, the result of many years of discussion and reflection. It was conceived to lead Canada into the 21st century, and I believe it will do so admirably.

2030

I know that the Constitution is not the first thing on every Canadian's mind. The economy remains stagnant. Many persons are unemployed or are afraid of losing their jobs. The use of food banks continues to increase. Random acts of violence are a great source of worry to many persons. In addition to all of these concerns, Canadians are disillusioned with their politicians and with the political process.

It is no secret to anyone present here tonight that in the eyes of the public, politicians have lost much of their credibility. But what is at issue here is the Constitution of Canada, Canadian unity. The Constitution must not become a scapegoat. It must not pay the price of politicians in popularity. This is a plebiscite on a very specific issue. This is not an election.

I intend to vote Yes. I support the Charlottetown accord. In my view, it represents compromise and consensus. The alternative proposed by the No forces is the rupture of compromise and the absence of consensus. The No forces offer no alternatives because they cannot reconcile their views. I realize that interests differ, that expectations vary, but the accord not only respects these differences, it succeeds in integrating them into a more complete view of Canada to the advantage of all Canadians. The accord is flexible. It is worthy of our support.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my leader for his efforts in prevailing upon the Premier to give members of this Legislature this special opportunity to consider the Charlottetown accord. I feel that it's an important occasion. Many of us will have a chance to speak on this issue as a reflection that we have on the accord and a chance to express some of our views for the benefit of our constituents.

The process itself has been one of the most interesting ones that I have ever seen and certainly has raised a number of things that I feel have been very good for Canada and for Canadians. The fact that it's been an effort that's largely non-partisan is a credit to all the participants, that federal and provincial people who have been involved in these debates and discussions have had a bigger vision for Canada rather than their own parochial view which could well have sent them off on tangents of their own special nature. Though it's evident that some of the people within the debates have pressed their views, I feel that it has been largely a non-partisan event to the credit of all the premiers and the Prime Minister and those who were involved.

Within my own community we held a series of public meetings in which our mayor -- it was Tony Roman, our mayor, who, by the way, is very ill in hospital and I hope, if he's watching this, he is improving and mending well; he's been sick after surgery, but I look forward to seeing him back in office very soon -- the federal member of Parliament, Bill Attewell, and I conducted a very, very successful series of sessions involving academics and spokespeople from a cross-section of different parts of the economy and from parts of Canada, including the Honourable Joe Clark, to talk about Canada and the whole debate that was in process in January and February of this year.

We had close to 2,000 people who attended these sessions and through those discussions it was obvious that there is a fresh feeling of tolerance and respect for one another and for our country. Out of it there were many, many positive statements of people standing up and saying how much they believe in this country and how much they love Canada.

How seldom we in this country have stood up on our feet and said, "I love this land." People come to it, and when they become new Canadians, they seem to be more proud of being Canadian than those of us who were born here and may be sixth or seventh generation. To the extent that we have started to be proud of something is, I think, a credit to all of us.

One of the good things that's come out of this process indeed has to be Joe Clark. I just want to go on the record as saying how much I respect his significant efforts in trying to pull this together as a statesman and as one who has had from the beginning the very best interests of Canada. I think he has fuelled a new national vision for our country and he has helped give us a fresh sense of nationalism.

That leads me to the final point. I think one of the good things that comes out of this process is a fresh sense of national identity. I hope all of us can find good things within this land that make us proud of being who we are and what we are and understand the good fortune we have and the opportunity we have as a country to go out into the world and make a contribution for peace, for the environment and for the goodwill of all people.

One of the concerns that is worrying me is the whole sense that people may opt out of this democratic process on October 26, of participating with an X, indicating their position on the accord. I'd like to just touch on some of the worries that are there. I hope people will not be sidetracked by the personalities of some of the people who have been expressing their own positions, whether it be Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whether it be our own Prime Minister or the Premier of this province.

The fact that some people are making statements they don't like really shouldn't be a matter that influences people on how they make a decision. Far better if they can set emotions aside and their likes and dislikes for people, and, if possible, deal in a detached, intelligent way with the facts that are on the table, with the issues that are there, and come forward with a sense of what they really believe rather than be prejudiced by the variances and personalities of people who are making statements. I think that really puts the onus on every one of us to go and study for ourselves the research and the data that are available.

I also suggest that we've got to be careful not to just take secondhand information and run with that. There are sufficient data available that we can sit down and study, the original documents, the legal agreement which I now have. We can now have a legal text, if that's what you want to look at. But there is sufficient available if you call the 800 number that's presently available to obtain all the information that can help all Canadians understand just what is there and why they can make a decision.

Another concern I have is, don't be turned off by all this selling that's going on, some selling the Yes side, some selling the No side. It would be far better, instead of spending the money on just the promotional dogma, to lay out just some of the real, genuine reasons that are on their minds, stop the pressure tactics and let people make up their minds for themselves.

I guess one of the bottom lines I have is that this is one of the biggest decisions that we as Canadians have a chance to participate in. In making the decision, obtain all the facts, make a decision based on your best judgement. Do your own individual research. Talk with your friends and neighbours and base your decision on our future vision of our country. It's an opportunity that I hope Canadians will truly participate in so that when we make that decision at the advance polls or the polls on October 26, it's one that comes from the heart and the mind of every one of us who are making a fresh statement on our behalf and in the right that we have to make it.

When you think of that decision, I just hope we have a better turnout than we did in the last municipal election and in some of the previous elections we've had in this province, where we've had as low as 30% and maybe up to 50% or 60%. It's one of those issues where every Canadian should exercise his right of franchise.

2040

I have many problems with the agreement as it's been struck. If I were to concentrate on those reasons, I would probably vote No. I would probably hold back and say I'm not able to support the consensus that's been developed.

I point to the 25% guarantee to Quebec if in fact in the future it has less than 25% of the population; that worries me. I've looked at the Senate. My riding is larger than the province of Prince Edward Island. They will have six senators. Right now, they have four senators and four MPs. They have a large representation when a regional approach might have pleased me more, had we taken five regions across the country, rather than break it out with the six senators for Ontario and six for each other province.

The native self-government worries me. I'm satisfied with some of the explanations that have been given, certainly by Mr Harris and others. I just hope we don't have two Canadas within one Canada. I'm concerned about additional MPs. People keep on seeing the money that politicians spend and the cost to support and maintain us, but with the modern communications available to us, there isn't really the need to have more and more politicians in the mix.

The social charter worries me to some extent because if you're going to have a social charter, put some teeth in it. If it's not got any teeth, why have it at all?

A concern I have is that we've got a better trade agreement being struck between Canada, the US and Mexico, and we haven't done enough to break down the trade barriers between Ontario and the other provinces or the other provinces and Ontario. Why can't we begin to resolve the economic issues that are of concern to our country? Since the economic concerns were not included in the whole equation, that again leaves me with some sense of dissatisfaction.

Yet in spite of those issues -- and I've heard people talk and comment on those along with some of the agreements that were part of the Meech accord and they still don't like the distinctness of Quebec and some of the other agreements that were part and parcel of what we've now been led into -- I still come out of it and say I'm going to vote Yes, partly for the reason that there really isn't much alternative if one loves Canada.

I don't think the people who are supporting the No option have given me an overwhelming sense of commitment to saying No to Canada. I'm voting Yes because, for once, we've have had 17 Canadians come together. For over 30 years, Canadians have failed and failed, again and again, six full rounds of constitutional talks since 1968. Those talks have just gone on and on and this is one of the few that has made progress. The last one that we had failed; the one before that, Quebec was left off the round. At last we have a chance, that since 1968 have the first ministers of our country come up with some kind of consensus.

Do you realize that since 1968, 526 days have been spent by all these ministers discussing the constitutional agreements? I don't think we can afford, as a country, to continue to concentrate on constitutional talks. We have a chance now to put this behind us and get on with the issues of running the country, making us a strong economic nation, getting education going, helping people discover the best things that are available to them, whether it be through knowledge or the new territories that can be explored in our own country. Get on with life. Stop concentrating to such a degree on the Constitution as the be all and end all.

So yes, I vote Yes. I vote Yes for a number of reasons, but I probably have fewer benefits within the Constitution than I really would like. I'm voting Yes because I love Canada. I see Canada as a country where there is a tolerance for one another and a caring that can somehow still make it all come together as one country, one nation from sea to sea.

I have two votes. I have one vote as a citizen in the province of Ontario, as a Canadian citizen, and in my riding, I will be voting Yes. When I come back into the Legislature, should it be brought to a vote here, I will vote according to the way my constituency has voted and I will be bound by how my own riding has reacted. So if my riding says No, I will bring that message in the vote that I will make here in this Legislature.

It is one of the biggest decisions we as Canadians can make and should make. I strongly hope every one of us will do everything we can to make this a strong and good country and that whatever the reason is, we have it based on some reason that satisfies our own curiosity, our own sense of purpose and our own sense of future vision for this country.

Mordecai Richler has written a book, Oh Canada, Oh Quebec, and his ending of the book says in part why he is supportive of this agreement. He wrote this before the Charlottetown accord was presented. He talks at length in his book about the PQ and how much he doesn't like them, but he says in his last sentence, "If I consider the PQ an abomination, it's only because, should their policies prevail, everyone in Canada would be diminished. This is still a good neighbourhood, worth preserving so long as it remains intact."

I believe that's true of Canada. It is worth preserving as long as it remains intact. To that extent I will be voting Yes and I hope those out there tonight and across Canada who are thinking about this important debate and the Charlottetown accord will find their reasons and that they will make a clear and honest decision before October 26.

When it's over and done with we can look forward into the future and see a country that will continue to blossom and flourish and to be strong in every way. We will be a country that has a strong sense of human rights, where we have respect for everyone. The hyphenated Canadian will disappear and we will all be Canadians because we are part of this country. We will be part and parcel of a country that cares for one another, but also for the rest of the world, a country that has a purpose, to take the seas, take to trade and take to the world, and offer something that we have, a country that is a haven for goodness and goodwill, a country that is the best in the world.

How proud I am to be Canadian. How proud I am to fight for this country and represent a riding within this great country. How hopeful I am that after October 26 this country will continue to be strong and that its future will be great.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I believe in progressive change in our society and that's the reason I'm here. I believe in the empowerment and the equality of women and everyone, and that is very important to me. If the Charlottetown accord jeopardized any of these values I would not support it. If the Charlottetown accord means saying Yes to Mr Mulroney I would not support it. It does not.

The accord is a creative, imaginative, generous agreement that will move this country forward. As Ed Broadbent said on CBC TV on Sunday night, we will have the best Constitution in the world. We will remain a federal state, involved in a natural maturing process. In 1867 Canada was formed by a coming together of English and French in a remarkable federation which has shown flexibility over the century, flexible enough that the best of our social and economic policies, such as medicare, have been able to evolve.

I would like to explain why this is not Mulroney's deal, but is everybody's deal. In February of 1991, I, along with many others, was appointed by Premier Rae to the select committee on Confederation and that week we flew to Kenora, the first week in February, to begin asking the people of Ontario, "What really matters to you about Canada?" That same week we went from Kenora to Dryden, to Sioux Lookout, to Thunder Bay and to Sault Ste Marie. We continued across Ontario, in seniors' centres, in schools, in legions, in town halls, to hear what the real people of Ontario had to say.

What did we find? We found that people cared about giving native people an inherent right to self-government, respect after a century of paternalism and colonialism. Did you know, in fact, that under the Indian Act, native people now have lesser rights than we do and their culture has been suppressed?

2050

People cared also about a social charter stating how important social programs are to us, that being Canadian means a right to medical care, to education and social programs.

People cared also about stating clearly that all people have equal rights in Canada. Yes, women have certainly come a long way and this must be protected and expanded. This government is committed to ensure that major changes in attitude must continue.

People cared that the division of power between the federal and provincial levels be flexible enough to make services cost-effective. They didn't want duplication; they wanted modern, efficient government. And on that note they did wonder how, in this day and age, we still have a blatant, out-of-date, patronage Senate.

Many people also recognized Quebec as a distinct society; not better, but equal and distinctive. I'd like to ask Ontario: What if Ontario was the only English-speaking province in a French-speaking Canada? In a huge, French-speaking continent, how would we feel? Would we want to ensure our distinct society?

After listening to the people of Ontario, you may recall 130 representatives of very different interest groups came together last October 13, I believe, exactly a year ago at Hart House at the University of Toronto. These included representatives of natives, women's groups, the disabled, business, labour, every sector of Ontario. Our committee was hesitant. Could this experiment work? Could these people ever agree? After sitting down those two days and listening to each other, common principles emerged again. People did agree that reform must happen, and I thank Mr Dennis Drainville, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, for chairing that quite amazing weekend.

These principles formed the basis of last February's report from the committee to this Legislature and they were taken to the negotiations which started last March and continued through to August in Charlottetown.

Ontario's delegation, as I'm sure you have seen on television last night on The Journal, worked very hard over these five months to try to bring consensus. We got the right to self-government for native people; we got a social charter; we got equality rights for women and everyone; we got a division of powers that is more reasonable and cost-efficient; we got a reformed Senate; we got an opportunity to bring Quebec into the Constitution. Make no mistake: This was a long and difficult process of consensus-building and quite an astounding accomplishment.

Last Friday I walked down the main street in Niagara Falls, called Queen Street. I went into every business and I talked to the people out on the street. It was a beautiful sunny afternoon. There were a lot of people there and I want to thank those people, because they were interested, they really were concerned: "How do I vote?" "Why do I vote?" They all had questions. Some were very passionate, some were hostile, but they all cared. Some said they were voting Yes because Yes means ending decades of constitutional wrangling. Some said they were voting Yes because it means good news for the economy. Some said they were voting No. But I'm voting Yes because I believe in a positive future and an inclusive Canada.

It's very easy to be negative; it is very, very easy. I would ask everyone to be positive about our future because after this long process that I've just explained, this opportunity may not come again.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): At the kickoff to the Yes campaign in Mississauga on October 1, Tom Buckley, an American who chose Canada as his home and Mississauga as the base for his company, closed his speech with a quote from Shakespeare. I'd like to begin my remarks where Tom left off, using the same quote:

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood,

leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat,

And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

It would be wise to take Shakespeare's counsel, given 400 years ago, to solve the problems of Canada today. The tide in today's Canadian affair is the Constitution. The shallows and miseries are the single-interest groups who seem ready to scuttle the ship of state for their own narrow, selfish interests. Unless we catch the current, called changes to our Constitution, or the Charlottetown accord, we may lose our venture, Canada.

To paraphrase the following passage from the gospel, "What benefits a man if he should gain the whole world but lose his immortal soul?" What benefit will we get if we obtain all the changes we want but in the process lose what we are trying to improve -- our country, Canada?

I don't want to be too melodramatic; I don't want to paint a doom and gloom scenario, but to quote from Tom Buckley's speech again: "The risks from a No vote are impossible to calculate. A Yes decision offers at least another opportunity to realize this nation's greatness." Since the risks of a No vote are incalculable, why gamble? Why take a chance?

Because I'm on record as having first opposed the Meech Lake accord and then reluctantly voted in favour, let me explain why I've changed my tune and support the Charlottetown accord. My opposition to Meech was based on two reasons: the right of veto to all provinces and the lack of definition for the "distinct society" clause. The veto is still there, but the definition of "distinct society" significantly improved, to include a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition. As Clyde Wells says, "No one can dispute that for those reasons only, Quebec is distinctly different from any other province of Canada."

I would prefer if the definition of "distinct society" went further and was put in a Canadian historical context to prevent other cultures and language groups from feeling left out, but if it's good enough for Clyde Wells, the present definition is good enough for me. As for the veto power, I'll just have to live with it.

Regarding the Senate, my preference would be abolition. However, since a triple E Senate is as important to some provinces as "distinct society" is to Quebec, I think the solution reached is a good compromise, one which I can accept.

Criticism regarding the dilution of federal powers is examined in a Toronto Star editorial on October 9 under the heading "A Modest Shift in Federal Powers." Seven areas were examined: immigration, culture, forestry and mining, tourism and recreation, municipal and urban affairs and housing, regional development and telecommunications and job training.

One, regional development and telecommunications, remains exclusively federal domain. Two are somewhat controversial -- job training and immigration -- because some provinces want more input. The remaining four retain the status quo -- provincial control, for the most part. The Charlottetown accord simply removes the overlap. It simply confirms the current state of affairs in these areas.

The conclusion reached in the editorial: "The package presents a reasonable compromise, with only a modest decentralization of powers."

The reaction of many groups to the accord and the response of members of these groups to their leadership stand, whether for or against, proves one thing: Canada is maturing, the groups are maturing and the communities are maturing. It proves that all groups and communities are comprised of individuals, that individuals tend to think for themselves even if they belong to a group, and that leaders, self-appointed or elected, don't necessarily reflect the views of their membership on every issue. This is borne out by the multitude of "NAC Doesn't Speak For Me" buttons, by the opposition to Ovide Mercredi among native groups, and by the disagreement with Pierre Trudeau's criticism of the accord by multicultural groups who have regarded him in the past as infallible.

2100

This brings me to the next point, a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star of October 8 by a 16-year-old girl named Meridith Willis, titled "Vote on My Future, Not on Your Pasts."

"As the referendum date approaches, I am getting very worried about what is going to happen to my Canada. That's what it is, my Canada now and for years to come. I want an opportunity to vote Yes to save my country, but I can't. I'm 16 years old. You see, I'm too young to vote. Oh, and of course I'm not educated enough to make a responsible choice.

"My 75-year-old grandfather can vote. He will vote No because many Quebeckers refused to go to war. That shouldn't be forgotten, should it? Of course not; after all, it happened only 50 years ago. Let's talk about my 89-year-old grandmother. In her words, she doesn't care what the outcome is. She's just mad at Bob Rae and is tired of hearing Quebeckers complain, so she's voting No.

"Guess who else can vote: my English teacher. And the funny thing is, she's only been a Canadian for six months. I've been a Canadian citizen for 15 1/2 years longer than she has and I can't vote.

"The people who can vote, old Canadians, new Canadians and angry or hurt Canadians, don't have as much riding on the outset of the referendum as I do.

"You must vote on my future, not on your pasts. Since I can't vote Yes to save Canada, maybe you can." Signed by Meridith Willis of Toronto.

Those are eloquent words which each of us should take to the voting booth on October 26.

To those who are sick and tired of our never-ending constitutional squabbles I will recite the following story told to a gathering in Toronto October 3 of the World Sikh Organization by a former president of the group, Gian Singh Sandhu.

Guru Nanak and his followers came to a village which did not welcome him. Despite harassment and hostility, he spent the night, and upon departing the next morning wished his unwilling hosts the following, "May you live in peace and never leave this village." He came to the next village which welcomed him and treated him like a king. As he departed the next morning, Guru Nanak left with this greeting, "May you have no peace here, may you leave your village and travel the world." His followers asked why the contradictory messages? Didn't he have them mixed up, the wrong message conveyed to the wrong village? Guru Nanak's reply: "My messages are correct. I want to contain the malice and ill will of the first village to keep it from spreading. The cheer and goodwill of the second village I want to spread worldwide."

Perhaps the good Lord wishes to use Canada in the manner of the second village, as a model to the world on how to discuss, if not solve, constitutional problems. Aren't our methods better than those practised in the former USSR and the former Yugoslavia? As to the complaints about the imperfection of the Charlottetown accord and the demand for a perfect agreement, I offer Lubor Zink's assessment in the Toronto Sun, October 12, titled, "Flaws Commend Charlottetown Accord." His reasoning is as follows:

"To be workable, constitutions cannot deal with perfect abstractions on sanitized paper but with far from perfect human behaviour in the far from sanitized real world. The only known exceptions are the constitutions of dictatorships. Drafted by propagandizing ideologues and imposed by fiat, they are, on paper, models of flawlessly noble idealism and rational consistency. In fact, ...they are façades hiding from gullible outsiders a reign of bloody terror and horrendous crimes against humanity."

The Bolshevik power elite of Serbia, with its ethnic cleansing and concentration camps under the guise of some higher ideal, is the most current example, although Zink uses Stalin's 1936 model to illustrate his point.

So if perfection of document is not all-important in the real world, what is? I turn again to Tom Buckley. "A country exists more in spirit than in law, more in its sense of goodwill than in written agreements. Only the intangible sense of wholeness can maintain the integrity of the state." Very eloquent but very true.

New concepts such as native self-government will take some experimentation and some getting used to. However, having seen a documentary about a similar concept in Arizona, if memory serves me right, I am sure the same questions and concerns will be answered as favourably in Canada.

As to the recriminations about the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons and Senate, this is nothing new. The Constitution Acts of 1886, 1915, 1974 and 1975 reallocated representation of the provinces and territories in the Commons or the Senate or, in some cases, both houses.

Je crois qu'il est très important d'essayer de parler en français quand il est question d'un sujet aussi sérieux que l'avenir du Canada. J'ai de la difficulté à croire que certains fédéralistes et séparatistes votent contre l'entente de Charlottetown. Est-ce possible que cet accord soit à la fois une «vente à rabais du Canada», selon l'opinion de Pierre Trudeau, et un abandon par Bourassa des intérêts du Québec, selon l'opinion de Wilhelmy-Tremblay ? Est-ce possible que Bourassa a été trop efficace au cours des négociations constitutionnelles, comme le suggère Trudeau, ou inefficace, comme on l'entend sur les bandes enregistrées de Wilhelmy-Tremblay ? Il est impossible de répondre oui à ces deux questions en même temps.

Je vais vous donner le résumé d'un discours prononcé par le docteur Desmond Morton, directeur du Collège Erindale de l'Université de Toronto, au lancement de la campagne pour le Oui à Mississauga, le 1er octobre dernier :

«Comment devons-nous voter ? Est-ce que nous voulons en finir avec les problèmes constitutionnels du Canada ? La réponse est oui. Est-ce que nous, Canadiens et Canadiennes, pouvons montrer au monde entier comment nous nous accommodons aux différences entre les régions et entre les peuples ? La réponse est oui. Sommes-nous capables de persuader les gens d'investir au Canada, et ainsi, de mettre un terme à la récession ? La réponse est oui. Est-ce que cette entente est bonne pour le démocratie ? La réponse est oui. Est-ce que les Canadiens veulent être solidaires des peuples autochtones ? La réponse est oui. Est-ce que c'est le moment d'élaborer une constitution qui protégera les droits sociaux, économiques et juridiques ? La réponse est oui. Quand le Canada a besoin d'un Oui ferme, y a-t-il une autre réponse ? Aucune. La seule réponse est Oui.»

2110

Finally, I'd like to quote a letter of the day printed in the Toronto Sun, October 9, from a Jordan Grant of Toronto: "I am tired of hearing from all those who are saying either No to the constitutional deal or Yes they are prepared to 'hold their nose' and vote for a flawed agreement. Have these people no concept of the nature and history of this great nation?

"Canada was founded by two distinct peoples and three different regions coming together in a spirit of mutual tolerance. The country has grown and matured in a wonderful mixture of diverse regions and cultures all living in remarkable harmony.

"When it comes to the Constitution, there are probably 26 million different opinions as to what would be the perfect governmental structure and balance of power. And as we know, these opinions are incredibly disparate.

"After an unprecedented exercise in public consultation and soul-searching, our politicians have come together in a spirit of reconciliation to attempt to find a balance that can satisfy people from all regions and all political persuasions throughout the country.

"The agreement that they have reached is not a flawed agreement, but a brilliant compromise in the best of Canadian tradition.

"They have somehow managed to balance the 'two nations' view of Quebeckers, with the '10 equal provinces' view of westerners.

"They have figured out how to institutionalize an 'asymmetrical' distribution of powers without granting special status to any particular province. They have balanced the principle of representation by population with the less populated regions' need to have a sense that they have some say in the power structures of this country. They have finally recognized our native peoples and incorporated them into the nation.

"Yes, if it was up to me, my perfect Constitution would have been different than that arrived at. However, I realize I am only one of 26 million voices. I believe that given the diverse people and diverse views at the table, this agreement represents the best that could have been achieved, and that the best is good.

"Come on, Canadians, let's get off our butts and support this deal, not reluctantly, but with enthusiasm and vigour. It's time we stopped nitpicking and move on to more serious problems."

Signed, Jordan Grant.

An accord that can garner the support of labour and business, aboriginal groups and multicultural groups, the federal Liberals, Conservatives and NDP and their provincial counterparts and the federal and provincial leaders of these parties must have many positive aspects. Even its imperfection, to quote Zink's article again: "Far from being a reason for rejection is a commendation of its acceptability in democratic society. It refers to a set of attainable compromises."

Let's use general elections to settle our political differences. The referendum is about Canada.

In conclusion, remember the words of 16-year-old Meridith Willis when casting your ballot October 26: "Vote on my future, not on your pasts." Vote Yes.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to enter the debate this evening as well. I want to say that I hope what the vast majority of the people will do is to not listen to the politicians, not listen to the Prime Minister, not listen to the Premier, not listen to all the special interest groups, but indeed what I encourage all people to do is to get a copy of the consensus report on the Constitution.

The particular consensus report is what was agreed upon in Charlottetown. It's about 25 pages of very simple reading -- as was alluded to earlier, there is also now the legal text -- but this simple document, that can be picked at any MP's or MPP's office, will tell you exactly what is in the deal. It won't tell you any of the spins of any of the special interest groups or any of the parties or any of the politicians. It will tell you exactly what is agreed upon. I say that after this vote is taken, we won't be able to blame the politicians any more. It will be the people who will have made the decision, and I encourage everyone to make an informed, thoughtful decision.

I've followed this constitutional debate since I first came to this House. One of the good things that will come as a result of the referendum is that I'll be able to clean out all the files I have. I've read the Allaire report, I've read the Ontario Constitution report. I actually was going to bring it up to show some of the members here tonight, but there was too much.

There is so much material that has been written about what we should do in the Constitution, about how we're going to operate, what this side started out with, what the west's position was, what Quebec's position was, and finally we've come to the consensus report.

In my opinion, as we stand here today, there is no better deal that can be made at this point in our history. There are some in the west who will want more, there are some in Quebec who will want more, there are some special interest groups that will want more, but this deal was fashioned upon compromise. I don't have time this evening to talk about the agreement that was reached with our original Constitution, but it is interesting that the word that kept coming back from Macdonald and from Brown was that the accord we signed in those days to set up this country was fashioned on compromise, and compromise is what this nation is all about. I ask people to read this deal, to take a look at it, not listen to all the spins that are out there, all the misinformation that's published. Read it yourself and make the decision for yourself. If you do that, I honestly, truly believe most people will support the deal and vote Yes.

I want to talk about what will happen afterwards. I don't believe, regardless of whether it's a Yes or a No, that this will end the Constitution debate. If it's a No, there's no doubt that the Parizeaus and the separatists will say, "See, we couldn't get Meech Lake, we couldn't get the Charlottetown accord, so we need to have a sovereignty vote to get what we want." People in the west, if there's a No vote, will still be upset and blame all their problems on central Canada: "If only we had a Senate that could shut the powers of central Canada down, this country would be better." That won't go away, but it also won't go away with the Yes vote. Make no mistake about it, there are about 30% of the people of Quebec, the sovereigntists, who will still be pushing regardless of what happens in this vote. I wish I could tell you that this was going to end the debate. I don't think it will. But I believe a No vote would be much worse.

Some say Quebec got too much power. Again I think what people should do is take a look at the document, read what the "distinct society" clause means. Page 1, there it is. It says, "Quebec constitutes within Canada a 'distinct society' which includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition." That's the simple "distinct society" clause. I don't think anybody would argue that they do speak French, that they have a unique culture and that they have a civil law tradition.

But when people say that Quebec gets too much power or that this province gets too much power, I think it's important to look on page 2, at the top: "Canadians confirm the principle of equality of the provinces, at the same time as recognizing their diverse characteristics." It's right there in the Canada clause that all provinces are equal. People talk about 25% of the seats that Quebec will get. Most people, as has been mentioned by some of the other speakers, don't realize that some of the smaller provinces are overrepresented right now. Indeed, there is a compromise in that area.

The original deal that was agreed to in July I would not have been able to support. It was ironic that only when the Premier of Quebec came in and said that he wanted to clarify some of the provisions with native rights, wanted to water down some of the provisions of the Senate and when he got more seats for the province of Quebec, that by virtue of its size Ontario got more seats, there became agreement that I think was a compromise. I could not live with a Senate that had equal powers that could defeat any bill, even though in our history when a lot of this debate came out and when Trudeau was the Prime Minister, I agreed on some issues with some of the people out west and would have loved to have had the power to defeat certain of the proposals. But I honestly, truly believe that we as a nation will only succeed if the will of the majority is there.

So there is a compromise. This Constitution is a framework of how we will operate. I am a little discouraged in that we spend so much time on how we're going to operate and we don't get to the real question of what's going to happen with the economy, with education and with health care. It's almost like being in a baseball game. The other team's up to bat, the Japanese are preceding the Americans and here we are, sitting in the dugout still trying to decide who's going to play first base and who's going to play second base and how we're going to operate.

2120

Many of the challenges we have don't lie in getting a constitutional deal; they come in how we're going to get the compromises we need to be able to compete, to have the education system we need, to have the health care system we need and to be able to make this the great country that it is.

I believe the majority of people, if they take a look at this deal, will be happy. There will be some like the Judy Rebicks and the Parizeaus who will never be happy with any deal. In my opinion, they are pushing their own special agenda.

What we have done in this particular deal is fashion a compromise that is truly Canadian. Canadians have succeeded because of compromise. We have been able to succeed and prosper as a nation because we have represented the views of the people from the smaller provinces as well as the ones from the larger provinces.

I say to the people who are out there, don't listen to the spins that are out there. Don't listen to the high-paid marketing people who say what you should be reading into a document. Read the document yourself, understand it and take a look at it from your perspective. Take a look at the deal based on the perspective of all Canadians. I honestly, truly believe it will be a deal that most people in this country can support.

Some people have talked about some of the areas of concern. I briefly want to touch on them. Some are concerned about the social charter. As has been said before, I honestly, truly believe that if we have a healthy economy to be able to support the programs, we will have them. If we do not, as this government has found out, all the good intentions in the world won't matter if there isn't the money to pay for them. Indeed, if the will is there, we will have them.

Some are opposed because they are opposed to the politicians, but regardless of what happens the next day, each Premier will wake up as Premier. The Prime Minister will wake up as Prime Minister. We'll all be in our positions. Quite frankly, I don't believe you will punish any of the politicians by a vote either Yes or No. As we saw in this last election, there were a lot of people who wanted to punish the Liberals and David Peterson, and they did that, but in my estimation, they didn't look at what they were voting for in a lot of cases. Ultimately, it isn't the politicians whom you'll punish with this document; it will be the people who need to decide on this very critical issue. If they do what I believe should be done and take a look at the document, in my estimation they will be able to support the deal.

Having read the document, having looked at the negotiations that have taken place, having been involved in all the discussions right from day one -- I was at the conference that was alluded to earlier where Ontario's position was laid out; we had a chance to speak to some of the natives; I had a chance to speak to some of the women's groups; I had a chance to speak to some of the groups who were out there pushing some of the ideas -- I honestly, truly believe that this deal is a compromise that is truly Canadian.

I say to the people out there, when you're making your choice, don't do it because you want to punish any political party or any individual. Do it for yourself. Take a look at it, look at the compromises that have been made and do it based on what you believe is best for the country.

I am one of the ones who doesn't believe that politicians should use some of the scare techniques. It's the people's Constitution. I believe if they truly look at this deal and truly take a look at it from the perspective of what is best for Canada, indeed the people will make the right choice. Quite frankly, if there isn't compromise on the Constitution, we will never, ever have any of the compromises that are needed on some of the more critical questions facing us.

Think about what your vote will be. We are now in a period where it's very confusing. Take a look at the 25-page, simple document. Stand up and say what it means for you to be Canadian. Quite frankly -- and let me close by saying this, because I know the member for Simcoe East wants to say a few words -- this indeed might be the most important vote they ever make. I hope the people will reflect on that and make the correct choice.

I've had the opportunity, as I've said many times, of growing up in the greatest province and the greatest country in the world. I want to pass that legacy on to my children.

Don't do it because you believe in any politician or any ideas. Do it for the future of this country. Make your choice wisely. I honestly and truly believe that if we do that, not only will we have a nation that we'll be proud of but we will have a nation that will lead the rest of the world in many of the things we believe in.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and speak about a subject which is certainly near and dear to my heart, as I served as Chair of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I must say I was much moved as we went through our many hearings and came face to face with people from across this province who had very strong and passionate concerns about the future of our country. How often indeed we heard stories of people's strong commitment to the continuation of this federation that we all believe in and love.

I want to say that it's important that we set this whole debate we presently have on the constitutional accord within the framework of the present negativity and cynicism which is so much part of our society. I think we have to acknowledge that, because not to see it in those terms would be, in a sense, to ignore the fact that we're trying to accomplish something very important, something very precious for our future within the context of a time and a place when there is a great deal of unrest, a great deal of, let us say, a lack of concern and commitment in the future of our country.

This cynicism and negativity, I believe -- and you'll excuse me if I move slightly into the theological, as is my wont on occasion. People say we have social problems today, and we do; that we have political problems, and we do; that we have economic problems, and indeed we do. But with all those problems that we face as a people, there is no question in my own mind that the deeper and greater problem in this country is a spiritual problem, an inability to see the future and to hope for a time when Canadians working cooperatively, working for the common good, will be able to build a nation which we will all be proud of. It is this spiritual malaise which is at the core, I believe, of the strong No movement which we hear through this province and across the country.

I want to reflect a little bit on the history of this. You'll note that the political scientist Frank Underhill wrote in 1961:

"We have been building a Canadian nation for nearly two centuries. We were born old, born saying 'No.' French Canadians said 'No' to the French Revolution; United Empire Loyalists said 'No' to the American Revolution; our forebears said 'No' to Papineau and Mackenzie when they wanted to introduce some democracy. We say 'No' because so many ideas come from the south and if we say 'Yes' too often we might wake up and find we are not so different. We are always looking back to the past, which means we say 'No' to the future."

I think there is a sense in a Canada when we look at Frank Underhill's comment. We say no so easily in this country. If you look at the elections that we have -- federal, provincial and municipal -- generally speaking we don't elect governments; we get rid of governments. We say no to them and get somebody else. It seems to be a Canadian way.

But I have to say that at this juncture and time we are asked as Canadians, as citizens of this province, to go beyond what we have been in the past. In a sense, we are challenged with a possibility of beginning a new, fresh start, a new vision of what tomorrow might bring if we work together as Canadian citizens. I believe that if we were to work together, if we were to dream the dream of what this country might become together, if we were to move together into the future, then we would be able to do what we need to do to build this country.

2130

I want to say, as I look through the Charlottetown accord and see the final text here, I've been through this many times and I've spoken to many people about the accord. One of the things that people have said about this accord is that the process was all wrong. We hear some criticism of the fact that there were so many men involved in the process.

As a New Democrat and as somebody who believes strongly in affirmative action, I've always believed we need to have more leaders who are women. But the fact and the reality is that the people of Canada have chosen the particular leaders they sent to be in congress together, to speak about the future and to try to plan for that future. To try to diminish the results of the process because of the gender of the people who were in the process I think is just not fair. The people of Canada of course have to take responsibility for who they select.

Also I have to say in terms of that process that there are those people who would say of our process that it was a process that was flawed because the people had no access. Let me speak a little bit about that. Not only is it false, not only is it misleading, but it gives no credit to the strong commitment of political leaders across this country who attempted to ensure that there was fair representation by the population in all the discussions around the Constitution.

I have to say, as I look back in history to the Victoria charter, as I look back at the patriation of the Constitution, as I look back at Meech Lake, they all failed, and they failed for one important reason. They failed in those days because people did not engage in the discussions and, by and large, they left the decisions and the discussions to those who had been elected.

But that is not the case with this agreement. Across this country there have been many, many different processes which involved the people of Canada, and people were not only able to enunciate their views, their hopes, their dreams about the future, but they were also able to make sure that governments were aware of their fears about that future, and there were fears expressed.

When we look at the Charlottetown accord, one question is raised to me: Who is diminished? I've got to say that as someone who has worked as an advocate for so many years for people on low incomes, people in need, people who needed the support of others in society, there is a sense in which I've always looked in the human rights sense at who is diminished in our society and who is diminished in certain agreements and who is diminished by the working out of the institutions of the people of this country, so when I looked at this accord, I looked at it through those lenses. When I look in this accord, this Charlottetown accord, for who is diminished, the answer I come up with is that no one is diminished.

If I look at the institutions, we have taken the institutions and we have attempted, in a compromise position, to provide opportunities for Canadians to be represented in new and revitalized institutions. That is a positive thing, and surely something to be accepted by the people of this country.

As we look at the social charter, what we see in the social charter is again not a totally acceptable thing for those of us who are perhaps a little left of centre in our approach to social policy, but certainly a major breakthrough in the understanding that certain national and provincial programs are central to our identity as Canadians and need to be maintained and supported if we are to move into the future with any security for people, and so it is that no one is diminished by that.

We look at Quebec. We see and we know that in the political movings of the last decade, Quebec has found itself sometimes feeling out of step with the rest of Canada, feeling that its interests were not being recognized, feeling that it needed an opportunity to give its assent to the Constitution. So in this Charlottetown accord we have that accommodation, that reconciliation between Quebec and the rest of Canada. This is something that does not diminish anyone.

We see, particularly in the aboriginal rights area, an area where there have been people who have been for too long the recipients of handouts, of being ignored, people who have not been given the opportunities to use their talents in the furtherance of their community and the Canadian nation as a whole.

In this new section on aboriginal rights and the inherent right to self-government, we have, if you will, the seeds of future flowering of the native community, so much so that we have the possibility of establishing in this country, in Canada, our own country, the possibility that we will have once and for all an equality based on an understanding of the culture, the history, the tradition that native people bring into our culture, and thereby make our culture stronger. Who is diminished by this? No one, I say. So we look at the Charlottetown accord and we give assent to that accord because we know that no one is diminished; we are made stronger.

Stephen Leacock said, "It may be those who do most, dream most." I think that's true. The dream that I have and the dream that we share in this province at this point in time is the dream of an Ontario which will be made strong and prosperous, an Ontario that will resound on October 26 to the word "yes": yes to the future, yes to our history, but most of all yes to the possibilities that we have and will have if we work together and live together and believe in each other.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have some time to debate and to give my views and the views of many of my constituents on this very important day when we're talking about our national Constitution.

I have had the opportunity to listen to many people in the riding who have expressed their views and concerns with regard to the question. The question, very simply, has been well known, and the question is, do you agree with what the premiers and others had accomplished in the Charlottetown accord?

There are a lot of yeses and a lot of noes. The people who have been asking me questions have been looking for information. They've been looking for in-depth information other than what they have been hearing from politicians. There are many people who have been looking for the legal document, for its interpretation of what the agreement was and what the agreement had said. There are many people who brought to my attention the fact of the 25% of seats for the House of Commons as a guarantee for ever, unless the agreement is changed. That has been a great concern to many people who have talked to me.

The double vote in the Senate with regard to the francophones from Quebec who have that double vote has been raised. The issue with regard to the Supreme Court, where we have nine Supreme Court judges and three of them are from the province of Quebec, has been there for a long time. That is now being put in the Constitution, and people are asking the question about that. The interprovincial trade barriers were never really dealt with in depth with regard to this accord. We have trade barriers now that do not allow province-to-province work to take place.

2140

The people have the right to be informed, the people have the right to know and the people have the right to vote. I think in a democratic society that is the way it should be and that is the way it will be.

To quote Diane Francis: "The process we're all going through is a healthy one, although I do feel that the referendum should be multiple choice. That aside, it's causing all of us to analyse and debate." It causes some of us to argue. Some families are divided. Feelings are running high in some cases. "People change their minds daily or hourly, depending upon whom they last spoke with or listened to.

"Unfortunately, this is not just a little division among Canadians. The whole world is watching this time. And, in my opinion, there are only two acceptable outcomes to this referendum, in terms of what will be the least damaging economically. First choice is a whopping Yes outcome across the country without exception. Second choice is a resounding No across the country. A mixed result is a disaster.

"A Yes means stability, and unity.... A big, fat No by all Canadians means rejection of the deal itself, not rejection of this or that part of the country. A No should force politicians back to the drawing boards or out of office. The worst outcome is a partial No or a weak Yes. It will resolve nothing and lead to even more bickering.

"And that's awful to contemplate because, as boring as the Constitution is, we are all gripped by the decision we must make and want to cast our ballot once and for all."

The topic is very controversial.

"'There is no point in trying to oversell any agreement,'" Manitoba Premier "Filmon told reporters after he returned from a two-week European trade mission.

"Reason and information, not rhetoric and threats, are the way to sell the proposal to the people."

Fred Cleverly: "Canada will not disappear if the accord is rejected, nor will the constitutional process be complete if it's accepted."

There are many interpretations of voting Yes and voting No. In La Presse, it says we must determine the cost of a No victory. The No slogan is "At this price it's No," but that can be turned around to read, "What will be the price of our No?"

There are a lot of concerns raised and there is a lot of background that people have to get so that they will make that decision which they feel is best for Canada. That decision is not easy. We now have people travelling the province on the Yes campaign, and I presume the No campaign is travelling as well, trying to get the main points across that they believe are the most important. When we have people like the Prime Minister -- you can't sell a message to the public if the public doesn't trust the messenger. We have Mulroney and Rae now trying to sell this deal and they're very low in the polls, as most people realize. That is a concern. Don't think that it's not, because it is.

Geoffrey Stevens, in his article in the paper, indicated that very point: "but all mainstream politicians are held in low esteem. The fact that virtually the entire political establishment of Canada is promoting the accord has the effect, perversely, of reinforcing the public's suspicions....

"It is no longer possible, in the age of television and satellites, to sustain the sort of two-campaign strategy -- one pitch to Quebec, a different pitch to the rest of Canada -- that has been a mainstay of Canadian politics. The Great Wall of China has fallen to the TV cameras. Politicians who try to play on the fears of voters in Quebec while simultaneously encouraging the ambitions of voters elsewhere are going to get caught, every time.

"When, for example, Mulroney goes into Quebec to warn of the dire economic consequences of a No vote and theatrically tears up sheets of paper, his performance is beamed instantly across the land. Hackles rise throughout English Canada."

These are things that politicians are doing that are a concern to the voters.

"Intimidation doesn't work. Voters are too smart, and too wary, to believe politicians who tell them the sky will fall if they don't vote one way or the other. They need to be given positive reasons for voting for the accord....

"It takes enthusiastic salespeople to sell a political product these days. The Yes side has plenty of high-profile pitchmen, but because of the compromise nature of the Charlottetown accord, they don't always wax enthusiastic."

"New Democrat leader Audrey McLaughlin didn't help the cause when she admitted to students in Halifax that she'd rather be debating free trade or the Mulroney economic record than the Constitution. And Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells didn't win any converts with this pitch in Vancouver: 'Even if you don't agree that it's perfect, consider whether it's the right thing to do under the circumstances for an interim period.'"

We have many politicians travelling this province saying that the Yes vote is the way to go. What I feel in my heart, and what people are telling me, is that they want information. I believe now that the information is getting out there. I do hope that the people will have the ability, and I'm sure they will, to be able to absorb that information and be able, on the 26th, to vote according to their consciences.

With regard to the likes of Mulroney and Rae, the Bob MacDonald article in the paper certainly was interesting with regard to the voting. It even indicated in the wrapup that if they were out supporting the No side, some people would probably vote Yes, which would help the cause. That's a very interesting article in the Toronto Sun on October 11, just past, with regard to how people vote and how they consider the way they should vote.

When we look at this Charlottetown accord and we look at the native self-government clauses and how they have worked to try to make that part of it, I think when Bourassa came to the table, that helped the accord. That helped give the rights to the natives, when most of those people around that table agreed it was right and appropriate.

So how would you look at the accord with regard to the "distinct society"? I think most people would agree that should be there. I believe that in most people's minds the "distinct society" is right.

But the thing that bothers me -- I am trying to come to terms with it -- is the fact that the polls indicate to me that Quebec wants to vote No. When I look at the things that are in this Charlottetown accord, I believe it's better than what the Meech Lake accord was. I find it hard to believe they would not vote in support of the Charlottetown accord; I really do.

If the rest of Canada votes Yes and Quebec votes No, then where are we? We have said simply to Quebec, "We agree that you should have what's in this agreement, what's in this document." If Quebec says, "No, we're not satisfied with that; we want something else," what happens then? These are some of the questions that the public out there would like to know.

What is the answer if we have two provinces, Quebec and British Columbia, that say No and the rest of Canada says Yes? Is the accord going to be put in place? What is going to be the reaction from Quebec? Nobody really knows what that is.

The part of the vote with regard to a total Yes, I think, would be great, if everybody, all provinces, agreed to it. But if one province doesn't, then there is still going to be a problem.

Once this accord is accepted by the majority, every indication then is that the debate will start: How are we going to implement these?

2150

There is one thing that bothers me. We had a vote here not long ago that we would abolish the Senate. I think most people across this province, if they had a vote, would probably feel the same way. The problem I have with it now is that we have a Senate-elected Senate or a Senate elected by the province or the territories. Quebec has already indicated that it is going to have its Senate elected by the province. The Premier of this province has not come to me or come clean, in my estimation, and said, "In the province of Ontario, we will have a Senate elected by the people." Or is he going to have a Senate elected by the government?

We're not getting answers to that, and I think that's where some of people's concern is. The people in British Columbia are indicating that they're not very happy with the 25% allotment enshrined in the Constitution, for Quebec to be guaranteed 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. The population of Quebec, I believe, is on the decline, and the province of British Columbia is on the incline. They are saying, "Why can't we have more seats in the House of Commons, the same as what Quebec is guaranteed?"

I want to go back briefly and talk about the interprovincial trade barriers we have in Canada. My understanding is that if some of the small provinces didn't want those changed, they wouldn't agree to them. I understand that the province of Quebec did not want to agree to them because at the present time the province of Quebec has people working in Ontario. There's no barrier for them coming to work in Ontario, but there's a barrier for the people in Ontario who want to go and work in Quebec, and that should not be. It should be a free trade, cross-border.

Not only that, but what we have in Canada is a bilingual country, but do we have a bilingual province in Quebec? That is what irritates some people with regard to the laws they have there. That is a concern and you can't dispute that, because that has been raised with me. It's been raised with me by students of the schools; not by Marchmount school, the school I was at last Friday, talking to the students about the provincial government and how the government works.

For sure, they had some questions about the Constitution. The first question they always ask is, "How are you going to vote in the Constitution?" which is a very good question. They don't beat around the bush to try to find out what the answer is. But I've indicated I have the same vote as everyone else in this democratic society. It's my job to make sure, as a leader in the community, that people have all the facts before them to make a decision based on the information they have. I think it's important that people get that.

I have observed, in my 29 years in politics, what people sometimes think of what you say and how it's interpreted. I think it's best for people to have the information and for people to make up their minds.

I have gone on for some length. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to talk about the Constitution. I didn't go into the social charter aspects of it. I touched briefly on native self-government. I touched briefly on Quebec and its distinct society. The people of this province are going to have a big job to do on October 26. It is important that this country stay together. I don't think there's one person who will vote No or Yes who wants Canada to separate; I don't think there is. I think a lot of people have their own mind on how they want to vote, and I don't know of anyone I've talked to who wants to see Quebec separate. They want to remain one Canada.

That then gives them the opportunity, with this accord, to make their decision as to whether they feel that Canada will stay as one or whether they feel a No vote will give them the opportunity to separate. That decision will be on the minds of many people making up their mind on which way they will vote.

I think it's fair to say that come October 27 this House will be back in session again. The people who have worked on the election will be getting ready to cash their cheques, very likely some $150 million worth, close to it. People will at that time wonder whether they made the right decision for Canada. I hope they do and I know every member who has spoken here this evening will hope they do.

I say it is the right of people to be informed, the right of people to know and the right of people to vote. When all is said and done, the Prime Minister of this country may have second thoughts about whether he should have called this referendum. I hope Quebec will change its way as I see it now and vote Yes for a complete Canada.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakwood. Oh, I'm sorry; there's no time left. There's time left for the Liberals.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Mr Speaker, I have one minute left this evening. I have several remarks to make and I would much prefer that I be given the opportunity to begin those tomorrow after routine proceedings.

The Deputy Speaker: It being close to 10 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 2158.